[EM] PR in student government...

[Howard Swerdfeger]

> 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?

my assumption when proposing mmp was that you had one rep per faculty.
there is something called stv-mmp

http://video.google.ca/videosearch?q=stv-mmp

but I think it adds un-needed complications.

but given all the information so far, I think I would agree with you STV 
is probably the way to go.

but as a second choice that is easier to explain and count.
Consider "Regional Open List".
This is Proportional, Easier for the voter to understand, Easier to count!





> 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
>>
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ----
> election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info