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

[Dave Ketchum]

On Aug 25, 2011, at 2:29 PM, Peter Zbornik wrote:

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

Agreed.  Need something brief here that some of us promote such for  
such as legislatures and are working on a separate effort for this.
>
> 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.

Only need a few words here, if any - seems like this might be done  
with Approval, whatever may get done for other elections.

Primary elections should be workable with whatever is done for the  
main election (minimize related costs - or perhaps with something  
simpler).  Still, how much need for primaries if main election can  
tolerate multiple candidates from any one party.

> 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.

Plurality needs to have a second round since its voters sometimes need  
to, but cannot, vote for more than one in the main election.  With  
better voting methods second rounds are less needed, and ARE an  
expense for all, including the voters.

Agreed that making second rounds standard could have improved results  
- unless it cost too much and voters react in a less than useful way.

> 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.
      When is this a useful addition?

Argue again that Condorcet should be considered a single method here -  
and something said about such as cycles existing, though not  
necessarily what to do about them.

Claim that what I wrote about simplifying Condorcet voting August 24,  
2011 3:05:19 PM EDT needs to be seen by more at this point.

Dave Ketchum
>
> 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/20110825/3fd815d2/attachment-0003.htm>