[EM] Voting reform statement; a clearer and more inspiring version

[Peter Zbornik]

Hi,

I aggree it would be good to make a separate statement for proportional
election methods.

Some other comments for the record:

Looking at single-winner elections
1) What about multiple round single-winner methods? For instance the
Brittish conservatives vote on who to eliminate each round . The candidate
with the least number of votes is eliminated, using only bullet voting. So
far, as I have understood, the only disadvantage with such an election
system is many election rounds.
2) All of the endorsed methods could be improved by simply letting the top
two contenders meet in a second round. Tactical voting might lead to changes
in preference orderings between the rounds and thus to improved results by
introducting a second round.
3) what about the option "None of the above", the blank vote, are we neutral
to this option? I certainly think this option is good and important.

Looking at proportional elections:
4) Aren't we in a position to
a) recommend Meek's method ahead of IRV-STV, when it comes to a better
proportional representation?
b) recommend IRV-STV (scottish STV) for its simplicity and relative ease of
being explained
c) recommend fractional vote transfer in STV? I cannot endorse random vote
transfer in STV.
d) fractional quotas instead of integer quotas? I cannot endorse integer
quotas.
e) be able to recommend at least one Condorcet-STV method, which is used
somewhere?
f) endorse that the majority rule should be fulfilled, i.e.that  a majority
of voters get a majority of the seats? I would not like to endorse
proportional election methods violating the majority rule, like IRV-STV and
the Hare quota. The Hare quota with Meek's method might however satisfy the
majority criterion, as the only STV method (have seen no proof though).
6) proportional election methods are most certainly not only appropriate for
elections to state legislative, but also for elections in any organisation,
the statement limits the scope of consideration to public elections,
especially to parliamentary bodies.
7) I do not think that it is a good idea to recommend proportional methods
outside the statement, i.e. at the time of signature.

Well normally, i.e. in our party, alternative proposals are voted upon.
If the proposals are supported, then they are included in the final text.
Sometimes a qualified majority is needed (like two thirds).
As this is an "expert opinion", it is important that almost all experts
agree, ofherwise it is not an expert opinion.
So the qualified majority quota could be higher, maybe 80 percent or five
sixths (used in Sweden for some constitutional changes).
Then the other question is who is an expert.
Someone who has published at least one paper in a peer-reviewed journal.
Well that's how policy is made in politics.
I think noone has come up with something better, except for enlightened
dictatorship :o)

In any case, it is great a statement is being made and I hope the people on
this list will be able to agree on a final wording.

Best regards
Peter Zborník


On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <
km_elmet at lavabit.com> wrote:

> Peter Zbornik wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>  please consider including a list of endorsed election methods for
>> proportional elections, just as you have done for single winner elections.
>> Otherwise the bold statement will just cover one special case in election
>> theory - single winner elections.
>>  Furthermore you might consider covering the issues of
>> (i) proportional rank orders. For instance when electing the party list in
>> primaries, in countries where closed lists are used.
>> (ii) proportional rank orders to elect a hierarchy of functions
>> proportionally, like board president, vice presidents and other board
>> members.
>>
>
> I think it would be better to have a separate statement for details about
> multiwinner methods than to put everything into one grand document, so as
> not to burden the latter too greatly. The statement we're considering now
> could have details about what single-winner methods we agree to support and
> then say "just about all multiwinner methods but closed list", then, if
> necessary, have another statement that mentions proportional rank orders,
> STV/QPQ/Schulze STV, open list, and so on.
>
> Perhaps it would be enough to say "anything but closed list" and be done
> without needing a second statement, as multiwinner methods have the
> advantage of multiple seats to even out strange results that would otherwise
> make for a bad method. On the other hand, it may be useful to have a common
> position on semiproportional methods (SNTV, parallel voting and limited vote
> systems, and so on).
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110825/63fe825c/attachment-0004.htm>