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

Kathy Dopp kathy.dopp at gmail.com
Sat Mar 20 15:56:46 PDT 2010

I have not had enough time to study this in depth but would personally
support this method only if it were counted using a Condorcet-like
method and thus avoids all the flaws such as nonmonotonicity, and
unequal treatment of voters' that STV exhibits.  I don't know what the
best method would be to count these, but this system sounds good if it
were monotonic and equitable, therefore STV counting methods would not
work, but I don't claim to know the best method to use to ensure
approximate proportional representation that is simple enough to count
to make it easily audited for accuracy and is fair to all voters and


On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
<abd at lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
> At 09:46 AM 3/15/2010, Terry Bouricius 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)? 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?
> Candidate list is a proposal that is related to Asset Voting, only is fixed,
> single-ballot. Candidate list allows independent candidates to bypass
> political parties. Of course the parties would oppose it!
> Whether a party would actually allow this, though, depends on how they
> perceive it as affecting their power.
> Sure, you could set up rules to disallow candidates from nominating
> candidates outside the party. But could you come up with a public policy
> reason for this? ("For the health of our political system, we must
> discourage any difference of opinion within political parties, and require
> parties to make single, monolithic decisions." What does that sound like?)
> Candidate list, in the end, would return power to the electorate, which is
> no longer bound to support a "party" in order to cast an effective vote.
> As Lewis Carroll noticed, in 1883, voters know best who is their favorite,
> that information is relatively clean and solid. Expecting the average voter
> to know more than that is expecting what is probably impossible.
> Party list does deal with this, but effectively confines the voter to
> supporting a party, rather than individuals, thus deferring power into the
> hands of whatever process the parties use. Candidate list is quite direct.
> There is no need to "restrict voters by the list order of one's favorite
> candidate." Rather, as I understand Carroll's proposal, I don't have the
> actual text of it, the method is STV. The reversion to the choices of the
> candidate is only if the voter's personal ballot becomes exhausted. It is to
> avoid wasting the vote.
> It is also possible to allow voters to vote for a party list. You'd rather
> support your favorite party than your favorite candidate? Fine. That,
> really, should be your choice.
> Power to the voters.
> Count all the Votes.


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