[EM] Satisfaction Approval Voting - A Better Proportional Representation Electoral Method

[Kathy Dopp]

One of the authors of the Satisfaction Approval Voting paper responded
to your comments, which I'd forwarded to them:

"I consider it [SAV] a very simple system--comparable to approval
voting--and to fix its alleged flaws would, in my opinion,
considerably complicate it without necessarily producing a better
result (however this is defined)."

I tend to agree, although I've not studied the issue enough to be 100%
certain.  There is a lot to be said for simplicity, additive feature,
compatibility with existing voting systems and ballots, auditability,
understandability, etc.

So far, I think I would recommend both SAV and the party list system
as proportional representation systems but am open to finding others
too.

Kathy

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 7:21 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
<km-elmet at broadpark.no> wrote:
> Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
>
>> Now, you may say that the second problem is analogous to STV's Woodall
>> vote management (don't vote for a candidate that would otherwise win),
>
> I meant, of course, Hylland vote management. Woodall vote management
> involves prefixing the vote with preferences for no-hopes, and as such isn't
> relevant in this context.
>



-- 

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

View my research on my SSRN Author page:
http://ssrn.com/author=1451051