[EM] Student government - what voting system to recommend?

[Juho]

On Apr 23, 2007, at 21:59 , Howard Swerdfeger wrote:

> In America there is a culture of voting for one of the duopoly  
> because in voting for anybody else there is a perceived (and  
> actual) lack of effectiveness.

Yes. In a very similar way voters might learn to think that not using  
full max and min values in Range would be "lack of effectiveness".

> However in Many other Countries, Canada, France, Germany....Votes  
> are given to many different parties in large numbers. I believe  
> that this is because there is often actual/perceived (opposition  
> parties, 2nd round) reward for voting the 3rd or 4th party.

In many voting systems also small parties may get representatives.  
The #1 reason behind emergence of a two-party system is maybe the use  
of single seat districts.

> smaller number of voters

I think the same logic is mostly there. Let's arrange some two voter  
elections. First we will vote on if I shall give you $1000 (A) or if  
you shall give me $1000 (B). I will vote A=0, B=9. I expect you to  
vote A=9, B=0. It is a tie and we will decide by flipping a coin.  
This election was very competitive since both of us felt strongly  
that donating that amount of money for no good reason would be  
terrible. Second vote. Which fruits are better, Apples or Oranges. I  
might vote something like A=7, O=9. You might vote A=5, O=7. Apples  
win, but I'm ok with the result since I did not feel competitive.  
This was more like a poll (that could be defined to be a "non- 
competitive vote").

> I am mainly of the opinion that very large elections should not be  
> conducted in a single winner method if there is any other possible  
> way.

Do you refer to multi-winner elections with single-seat districts?  
This would mean that some single-winner method will be used in each  
district. For me this is a question on if a two-party system is ok or  
if multi-party system (and maybe PR) should be considered better.

> > (maybe most importantly) the level of
> > competitiveness in the elections in question.
>
> If by competitiveness you mean 2 candidates close in popularity  
> leading everybody else.

Maybe my comments above already made my use of term "competitive"  
clear. I used it to refer to situations where voters feel strongly  
that their side should win and they typically assume that both others  
and themselves will use all the allowed voting power they are allowed  
to achieve that result. Term "non-competitive" would refer to  
situations where voters don't care that much if their viewpoint will  
win but are happy to accept whatever solution the combined opinion of  
all the voters will point out.

Political elections are typically competitive. Polls are typically  
less competitive. Voting on which family size Pizza (of several good  
ones) to buy for the family today may well be a quite non-competitive  
election.

Juho




		
___________________________________________________________ 
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com