[EM] PR in student government

[Howard Swerdfeger]

> Any suggestions?  I'm currently pushing the proportional aspect of the
> system, as that seems to be the primary thing that sets it apart from the
> status quo.  It's also the reason I see it as a big issue - elections have
> been rather uncompetitive thanks for to the tendency for the establishment
> to become entrenched...

Again, I recommend a Regional Open List System.
It would be my second choice (behind STV) in therms of results given the 
requirements you mentioned.
But it would be my first choice if one was to give more weight to 
simplicity of counting and simplicity for the voter.

Ballot Would look something like this

---
Voting Instructions:
1. You only have ONE vote.
2. Place an X in the box NEXT to your candidate of choice.
3. Your vote counts both for your candidate and your party.

Party A	          Party B       Party C      Independent
________________________________________________________
[ ]Candidate1  [ ]Candidate1 [ ]Candidate1 [ ]Candidate1
[ ]Candidate2  [ ]Candidate2 [X]Candidate2
[ ]Candidate3  [ ]Candidate3 [ ]Candidate3
---


Seats would be allocated proportionally by party.
But the member of the party that gets each seat would be determined by 
the number of votes the received.


PDF of a proposal for Regional Open List in Ontario
http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/documents/633004860208648190_Rice_RegionalPartyList_Final__0.pdf

Power Point summary of the above PDF
http://citizen2citizen.ca/sites/default/files/Rice_RegionalPartyList_Presentation.ppt


If on the other had you have your mind fixed on STV and are looking for 
arguments in favour of STV and ways to convince the populace.
  * point out it is used at the national level in Ireland
  * It produces somewhat proportional results
  * It is candidate focused and not Party focused
  * It is more accountable, (elected members answer to 2 masters. The 
party and his constituents.)
  * counting is easy and can be done with "off the shelf" Freedom 
software packages.



> 
> Tim
> 
> On 4/17/07, Jonathan Lundell <jlundell at pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 17, 2007, at 9:54 AM, James Gilmour wrote:
>>
>> >> From: Howard Swerdfeger > Sent: 17 April 2007 17:37
>> >>
>> >> Tactical voting is easy in STV.
>> >>
>> >> Step 1 : Determine what your preferred ranking is.
>> >> Step 2 : Determine who is sure to lose the election
>> >> Step 3 : Rank all candidates you are sure will loose above
>> >> the rest of your "real" list
>> >
>> >> The only flaw that I see is if you elect someone from your
>> >> "sure to lose list".
>> >
>> > Precisely!!
>> >
>> > If enough other voters pick on the same "loser" because they are
>> > playing
>> > the same game, your "loser" will become a "winner".  There is good
>> > evidence from real public elections with STV-PR that attempts at
>> > tactical voting of this kind are unwise.  The only good advice for
>> > STV-PR public elections, i.e. with large numbers of voters whose
>> > preferences you cannot possibly know, is "Do NOT attempt to vote
>> > tactically.  Vote positively for the candidates you really want".
>> > James Gilmour
>>
>> Alternatively, use Meek's or Warren's method, either of which is
>> immune to this particular strategy.
>>
>> ----
>> election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list 
>> info
>>
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ----
> election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info