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

Kathy Dopp kathy.dopp at gmail.com
Mon Mar 15 09:53:46 PDT 2010

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.


>> 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
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

Voters Have Reason to Worry

Checking election outcome accuracy

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list