[EM] [RangeVoting] Re: voting reform effort in DENVER - PLEASE HELP

Jan Kok jan.kok.5y at gmail.com
Sun Jun 11 15:43:31 PDT 2006

On 6/11/06, warren_d_smith31 <wds at math.temple.edu> wrote:
> > Promoters of the many different voting systems need to stand back from all the
> competing technicalities for one moment
> > and ask the question: "What is the purpose of this election?"  In the case of Denver it
> appears to be to elect a 'city
> > council'  (a body of 13 members) that is supposed to be representative of the
> community it is elected to serve.
> > Analysis of election results worldwide shows time and again that the only way to elect
> such a body that is properly
> > representative is to use a voting system that gives proportional representation.  All
> voting systems based on
> > single-member districts will give PR only by chance.
> --yes, I would like Jan to make it clearer what is the purpose of this
> election, please.   Is it a multiwinner election?

Right now it's 13 single-winner elections. Rob Richie and others like
PR. Seems like a good way to go.  The EM people and CVD and the Greens
et. al. might all pull in the same direction! Cooperation. What a
concept! :-)

- Jan

> Gilmour seems to think it is a 13-winner election.
> Or is it 13 single-winner elections (i.e. from 13 districts)?
> [I presume it is not, say  6.5   two-winner elections or
> anything like that since 13 is a prime number.]
> This is an important difference.
> Frankly I suspect that a 13-winner election with 50 candidates is
> not feasible for the voters to handle mentally.   So it is probably
> closer to 13 single-winner elections?
> If it is really a 13-winner election then you probably do want a PR voting
> method such as STV-PR (Gilmour's suggestion), RRV (reweighted range voting),
> or Asset voting.  Unfortunately, it is unclear if Denver has voting machines capable
> of handling STV  (another important fact we need to know before making
> a recommendation) and quite possibly they cannot handle RRV or Asset either.
> STV is complicated.  RRV is less complicated but still complicated.
> Asset is simple.  By the way, IRV or STV can be run in a NOT-proportional
> but simpler manner (i.e. without reweighting) which they might do due to not
> understanding these methods, and then you will just create a problem rather than solve
> one.
> If it is 13 single-winner elections, then it might be better to have 6.5
> two-winner elections or 4.33 three-winner elections or
> something to get more proportionality, but any such
> suggestion will involve redistricting and will automatically engender a huge battle.
> Also, if the two-winner idea is adopted, but not a PR voting system,
> the result will be LESS proportionality.
> If staying with 13 single-winner elections, then I recommend range voting
> as the best single-winner method and it works on voting machines right now,
> unlike IRV.
> Warren D Smith

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list