[EM] Proportional election method needed for the Czech Green party - Council elections

[Jameson Quinn]

> One device that is used by Borda Count, which is a related method, is to
> have as many ranks as candidates. While I generally favor this (it allows
> voters to use their ability to compare preferences to generate a rank
> order), it may be collecting noise, if there are a lot of candidates. My
> sense is that 3-rank Bucklin (which means 3 approved ranks), with an added
> rank within the disapproved set, is enough for most purposes, but some
> studies should be done with simulations to determine how much results are
> improved with additional ranks.
>

1. I don't see how Borda is "related" to Bucklin.

2. As I've said before, I favor only 2 ranks for Bucklin. This keeps
strategic opportunities to an absolute minimum, and allows simple one-word
labels for each rank (preferred, approved, unapproved).

Bucklin is very easy to understand and vote. Natural voting tendencies are
> sound strategy!


Agreed.


>
>
>  Of course, the issue with Bucklin is that it uses a different (simpler)
>> balloting style than STV or Condorcet.
>>
>
> It can use the same ballot, the same set of preferences. A Range ballot can
> be used for STV or Condorcet analysis. That the ballot is simpler is not
> exactly correct. A three-rank ballot looks the same as a three-rank STV
> (IRV) ballot. It's counted differently in Bucklin.


While you can modify STV to allow equality, the well-known versions do not.
Thus, the ballot is not the same. The Bucklin ballot is more permissive and
thus simpler.

Also, for a council, 3 rankings is not nearly enough for STV. You should
really require nearly-full ranking. With Bucklin, as few as 2 rankings is
enough (and, in my opinion, optimal).

JQ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20100429/bd73f7b2/attachment-0004.htm>