[Election-Methods] Best electoral system under real circumstances

[Dave Ketchum]

I restrict my commenting to Condorcet.

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:56:32 +0200 Juho wrote:
...
> 
> Single member:  Does this mean a dual party system based on single  
> seat districts? Is that what Brazil wants? (I don't yet.)
> 
> MMP:  More complex than open list. What is the rationale? Maybe  
> interest to have local single seat districts to elect very local  
> (small district) representatives? Is this what Brazil wants? Isn't  
> basic (open list based) proportional representation in bigger  
> districts enough?
> 
> Top-two runoff (for single winner elections):  Yes, in many cases  
> good enough but has also some clear problems and can be improved. I  
> don't think ranked methods (e.g. Condorcet that is a more "compromise  
> candidate oriented" (good or bad) and that is better from strategic  
> voting point of view) would be too difficult. At least if the number  
> of candidates is not large (7 candidates in the last presidential  
> elections according to wiki) then also the ballots can be e.g. some  
> simple ticking exercises. (The method should tolerate/allow some  
> ticking errors to avoid losing the votes of people who are not that  
> familiar with using the method.)

As a Condorcet backer, let me talk to voters a bit:
      If you would be happy with Plurality, voting for one candidate and 
indicating no preference among the rest of the field - do EXACTLY that 
vote.  Since you choose to ask nothing beyond showing preference for one 
and treating all others as equal bottom rank, your vote is simple.
      If you would like to vote a first choice above a second choice, with 
the rest of the field sharing bottom rank, vote F>S.
      If you would like to vote for two as equally liked first choice, 
with the rest of the field sharing bottom rank, vote P=P.
      For a more complex vote you can vote such as FA=FB>SA=SB=SC>TA=TB - 
where "=" connects those you like equally and ">" separates those to the 
left (liked better) from those to the right (liked less).
      You do not have to rank all candidates - those not ranked are 
treated as liked less.

How the voters mark ballots needs thought.  For example:
      Assigning the same number to multiple candidates indicates equality.
      Assigning different numbers to two candidates indicates difference 
in liking.  Matters not whether the numbers are numerically adjacent.
      Whether 5 is more or less than 6 has to be agreed on, but I am not sure.

There is less reason to do runoffs than with Plurality - voters can vote 
their thoughts as to preference in more detail with Condorcet than with 
such as Plurality.

Condorcet classifies some vote counts as cycles.  All members of a cycle 
are better-liked than the field, and runoffs MIGHT be useful among them - 
certainly deciphering which cycle member should win is a source of
arguments.

There is no value in demanding that all candidates be ranked - voters can 
rank all they see as better than scum, and demanding that they rank what 
they see as scum introduces noise with no positive value.
> 
> Juho Laatu
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 19, 2007, at 20:50 , Diego Renato wrote:
> 
> 
>>I've read in this list that possibly the worst electoral system  
>>used is Brazilian open list PR. In this year, Brazilian Congress  
>>discuted the change of electoral law to closed lists, single member  
>>plurality or MMP.
>>
>>Presidents, Governors and Mayors are elected by top-two runoff. I  
>>think this method is sufficiently good. Maybe ranked methods are  
>>not suitable for Brazilian voters' degree of skill, and for voting  
>>machines.
>>
I write above about required voter skill.

There has been plenty written about the stupidity demonstrated in US 
installation and misuse of voting machines.  I feel strongly that 
reasonable application of brain power and honest intentions should be able 
to get past these catastrophes.
...
>>_______________________________
>>Diego Renato dos Santos
-- 
  davek at clarityconnect.com    people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708   607-687-5026
            Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
                  If you want peace, work for justice.