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

[Kathy Dopp]

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:08 AM, Raph Frank <raphfrk at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Terry Bouricius
> <terryb at burlingtontelecom.net> wrote:
>> 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)?
>
> Open list doesn't really allow re-ordering of the party lists.  The
> method uses multi-seat plurality to decide which party candidates are
> elected.  It is better than having the party list decided centrally.
>
> There is a possible system where all voters can vote for a few
> candidates and then a party list as their last choice.
>
> However, that still leads to a large number of choices.  For example,
> if there were 50 candidates and 5 parties, then the number of possible
> ballots would be 50*49*5 = 12250.

More than that in the US where partially filled rank choice votes are
legal votes too.

I like the idea of choice, but also of simplicity, equality and
monotonicity. I don't have time to devote to studying this enough now.

Kathy

>
>> 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?
>
> Quite possibly.  However, even if the party insisted on party members
> being put first, it would allow party members to decide how to order
> other party members.
>
> Also, it reduces the power of the party over candidates.  If a party
> tries to throw its weight around, the candidate has the option of
> running as an independent and just listing some of the other party
> members as high ranks.
>
> It is a trade-off.  Ideally, there would be one district and everyone
> would be elected at once using some form of PR-STV.  However, this
> would be logistically difficult to achieve.  It would place a large
> load on the voters, as they would have to rank a larger number of
> candidates, and also on the counting process due to the large number
> of rounds required.  The candidate list method gives some of the
> flexibility of PR-STV and the national level proportionality of party
> list systems.
>



-- 

Kathy Dopp
http://electionmathematics.org
Town of Colonie, NY 12304
"One of the best ways to keep any conversation civil is to support the
discussion with true facts."

Realities Mar Instant Runoff Voting
http://electionmathematics.org/ucvAnalysis/US/RCV-IRV/InstantRunoffVotingFlaws.pdf

Voters Have Reason to Worry
http://utahcountvotes.org/UT/UtahCountVotes-ThadHall-Response.pdf

Checking election outcome accuracy
http://electionmathematics.org/em-audits/US/PEAuditSamplingMethods.pdf