[EM] Competitive Districting Rule. "above-the-line" voting

[Anthony Duff]

--- James Gilmour <jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
[on the introduction of optional party list "above the line" voting to the STV
ballot]
> I would assert that that change
> has been so great that it constitutes a "perversion" of the original purpose of
> STV-PR.

Sure.  But does it distort the results, with respect to an identical election
where there was no such option?  I think: possibly, but not necessarily.  I think
the issue of not allowing truncation is a bigger distortion.

--- Chris Benham <chrisjbenham at optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> High profile independent candidates tend to have "running mates" to pad 
> out a list of candidates and look less
> forlorn on the ballot paper in comparison with the party "groups".
> 
> Last election, a sitting independent candidate (Nick Xenophon) did much 
> better than expected with the result that his
> flow-on mostly above-the-line preferences elected his running mate (Ann 
> Bressington) a complete unknown with some 
> hobby horses that  Xenophon  wasn't known for.  If there was no 
> above-the-line voting and truncation allowed, I am
> sure she wouldn't have been elected.

What if above-the-line voting was allowed, but below the line truncation was also
allowed?

I think Chris is right.  The party list option allows unknown "running mates" to
have an advantage over unknown independents.  But on the other hand, a running
mate of a popular candidate has the endorsement of that popular candidate, and
ought to be expected to benefit from that. 

The issue of truncation not being allowed is a very important factor, and I
believe more of an issue than the party list option.  Not being allowed to
truncate means that completing the standard STV option is much more onerous.  
 
> >Is the statement "It has perverted STV-PR very severely" based on philosophy,
> >impression or evidence?  It is my impression that there is no perversion.
> >
> CB: The philosophical position that all candidates should have the same 
> chance of being elected, i.e. it should the same
> amount of trouble for a voter to vote for candidate x as it is to vote 
> for candidate y, is IMO very strong (bordering on unassailable).

Philosophically, I agree.
I suppose that if there was no no-truncation rule then there would be no practical
need to make voting easier.   I wonder if it is fair to say that the above the
line voting option derived from the existing insistence that truncation not be
allowed.

> >Independent candidates and micro-parties seem overrepresented in the ballot
> count.
> CB: By what standard?  Based on what?

Just my impression.  Minor candidates seem to get more votes that I would expect
from how many people I know actually support them.  I think what had happened is
that people have voted for minor candidates, especially single issue candidates,
as a protest, with the assumption that upper house voting is not really that
important.

However, Chris’ example, of the unknown running mate being carried along to
victory, is a good example of the election being distorted by the party list
option.

I would like to note that the federal senate method, where the above-the-line
party list ranks all candidates on the ballot, is an abuse, because it has allowed
for stooge candidates to attract votes and allocate preferences unknown to most
voters.  The NSW method, where a party list vote only ranks candidates from that
party, is at least in this respect not nearly as bad.

Anthony






	

	
		
____________________________________________________ 
On Yahoo!7 
Messenger - Make free PC-to-PC calls to your friends overseas. 
http://au.messenger.yahoo.com