[EM] Voting systems theory and proportional representationvssimple representation. (Abd ul-Rahman Lomax)

[Terry Bouricius]

Why would one want to have voters be restricted by the list order of one's 
favorite candidate, instead of allowing the voters themselves to reorder 
the party list (as happens with OPEN list systems - unlike closed party 
list PR)? Is the idea to allow candidates to list candidates outside their 
own party? Would parties put up with that from candidates they nominate, 
or wouldn't they  insist on that level of party loyalty to receive the 
party's nomination?

Terry Bouricius

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Raph Frank" <raphfrk at gmail.com>
To: <kathy.dopp at gmail.com>
Cc: <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 5:34 AM
Subject: Re: [EM] Voting systems theory and proportional 
representationvssimple representation. (Abd ul-Rahman Lomax)


On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Kathy Dopp <kathy.dopp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yikes Raph. I didn't know that the method was potentially
> nonmonotonic. I oppose all nonmonotonic methods.

Yeah, I know.  I brought it up in the interests of honesty.

However, there is another thread titled "A monotonic proportional
multiwinner method", that may have a method for combining ranked votes
in a way that is proportional and is monotonic.

It should be possible to run the method on a candidate list system.

> I would think that you could simple set a threshold number of votes to
> win a seat and then redistribute all excess votes for candidates to
> the 1st candidates on their own lists, then redistribute all the
> excess votes that resulted from that redistribution, etc. until there
> are no excess votes and all positions are filled.

Yeah, that is what I was thinking, though I would redistribute based
on the next preference on the candidate who transferred in the vote.

However, I think the method is non-monotonic, as it is basically the
same thing as PR-STV, but with restricted ballots.

> Yes, it would be much more complex than party list systems where none
> of the candidates were on more than one party list, but what about
> party list systems with shared candidates?

It is more complex, but the complexity would occur during tabulation.
The election results would just be a list of votes received by each
candidate.  Anyone would then be able to run the algorithm.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info