[EM] PR in student government...

[Tim Hull]

It's not a strict Borda count (ranking all candidates) per se - it's a point
system where your first place vote is worth n votes, second n-1, and so on,
n being the number of open seats.  What is being elected are representative
seats for student government divided proportionally by school/college.
and divided between two yearly elections (fall and spring) .  The college of
Literature, Science, and Arts (LSA) is the largest, receiving 19 seats (9 in
one election, 10 in another).  Other schools have anywhere from 7 seats (4
in one election, 3 in the other) to 1 seat (assigned to one election or the
other). Overall, most of the seats (and the ones that really matter) are
elected in the multi-seat constituencies.

Approval and range wouldn't work any better than our existing system, as
they aren't proportional (i.e. one slate can sweep seats easily).  It does
seem like STV is best - however, it does seem harder to explain than the
existing system.  How would MMP be done, anyway - especially with uneven
constituencies?

Tim
On 4/16/07, Howard Swerdfeger <electorama.com at howard.swerdfeger.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Tim Hull wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I e-mailed this list a while back about election methods in student
> > government.  I'm at the University of Michigan, and we use a variant of
> the
> > Borda count for our elections where you get as many votes as open seats.
> > Slates of candidates typically contest elections as "parties", and most
> > discussion of elections revolves around these parties.
> >
> > Anyway, the system as-is works better than at-large plurality, but it
> still
> > leaves much to be desired.  The biggest problem with the current system
> is
> > that the largest party slate always wins a disproportionately high
> > number of
> > seats - so large, in fact, that competition has generally withered away.
> >
> > As a result, I'm looking at proportional representation systems - and
> > possibly introducing one as a ballot initiative for next year. However,
> I
> > have experienced great trouble in finding a system that people like.
> > Single
> > Transferable Vote seems ideal, but it has the drawback of being complex
> > (and, as a result, hard for people to comprehend).  Party lists are
> > simpler,
> > but they force voters to support an entire party - not ideal at all.
>
> I would say that from my perspective at least STV is much easer for the
> voter to understand (what has to be done on the ballot) then Borda
> count, Although Borda is usually easer to count, once all the voting is
> done.
>
> you don't actually mention in this email what is being elected. but
> assuming is is some type of council with all members having the same
> rank and 3-5 seats are coming up for grabs at a time.
>
> I would recommend STV, approval or range, I really dislike party list
> systems. But they are at least more palatable when done in a best looser
>   method.
>
>
> If you recommend range make sure it is simple.
> ie 1-5 range with instructions to circle the best answer.
> you should also allow the voter to Leave a candidate blank.
>
>
> However, if your elections include positions like
> Science Rep, Arts Rep, Engineering Rep, etc...
> I would suggest a version of MMP with a best looser method of top up.
>
> good luck
>
>
> >
> > Does anyone have any suggestions?  I was actually recently elected to a
> > representative seat as the only independent candidate to defeat the
> > dominant
> > party slate, and am planning to introduce something.  I just need to be
> > able
> > to convince others...
> >
> > Tim Hull
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > ----
> > election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
> info
> ----
> election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20070416/f7a7f381/attachment-0003.htm>