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

[Howard Swerdfeger]

> 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.

Agreed.

> 
>> 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").

a) I guess I was thinking of "Non-competitive" as one where the winner 
is obvious long before the contest is held (boxing: Me vs Mike Tyson). 
and "competitive" as one where the winner is not known until the last 
possible moment (Running: Me Vs. You!).

b) accepting your definition for the purpose of this thread. I feel that 
while the same logic applies to small elections. The imposing force that 
would cause some elections to be reduced mostly to approval style is not 
as large in small elections. As there is more potential for fluctuations 
in voter opinion to cause voters to be more likely to vote honestly.

>> 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.

My basic philosophy on this matter is as follows.
1) Single Winner Single District is the worst least expressive form of 
democracy (almost always).

2) Multi-winner elections with single-seat districts is also a poor form 
  of democracy (usually). but usually better then 1 Winner 1 Seat.

3) The Class of PR systems (STV, MMP, Regional List, Other...) are 
better then both of the above (in most cases). But, it is not even close 
to perfect.

4) The ultimate form of democracy is one that
  * maximizes voter knowledge of issues
  * seeks to Involve the voters at every stage of decision making 
process   (direction, Discussion/deliberation, Vote)
  * generates a laws and directions for society that is representative 
of the beliefs of all well knowledgeable voters.

My country is currently at "2" I am hopeful it will move toward 3 very 
soon (5 years or less).


> 
>>> (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.

fair enough.

> 
> 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.

I disagree.
I do think that for many members of the US. presidential elections are 
competitive.
I also think that for most party members the race is seen by that member 
of the voting public as competitive.
But, I would also say that for the majority of the population the in my 
country (Canada) the election for them is not competitive.
In the last election I would Imagine a typical voter for the Winning 
Conservative Party true preference was something like this

Conservative = 1.5/10
Liberal = 1.0/10
NDP = 0.5/10
Green = 0.1/10
BLOC = 0/10

Many people in the last election who voted Conservative did not really 
want the conservative in power. They mainly wanted the ruling Liberals 
out of Power. and the only party with enough support to do that was the 
Conservatives.

Same goes for the one before that election. Many people "Plugged there 
nose" and voted Liberal because they were afraid of the "hidden agenda" 
  from the "Religious Right" in the Conservative Party.

This is the case in most elections I have been privileged to witness, 
and participate in. At City/Province/country Level.

I believe The majority of voters follow 1 of 2 methods

a) How to I keep X out of power (see above). Vote for whoever has the 
best chance of defeating them (no matter how repugnant).

b) determine which candidate they hate the least.

I am sure there are many voters that are true believers and vote 
"competitive" by your definition. But I would estimate them to be the 
minority of voters.








> 
> Juho
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 		
> ___________________________________________________________ 
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
> ----
> election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info