[EM] Fwd: how goes American PR?
Ted Stern
araucaria.araucana at gmail.com
Mon Dec 5 12:48:30 PST 2011
On 05 Dec 2011 12:46:41 -0800, Ted Stern wrote:
>
> The simplest PR system: open list Approval Transferable Vote.
>
> ATF for multiwinner elections:
Correction, ATV. Blame it on Monday ...
-- Ted
>
> Quota ("easy"): Q = (Nballots + 1)/(Nseats + 1)
>
> A voter may approve any number of candidates.
>
> Each ballot is initially weighted as 1.0.
>
> Count weighted approval totals. At same time, count weighted
> approvals coming from truncated ballots (only one standing candidate
> remaining on the ballot).
>
> In each round, seat the candidate with the highest weighted approval
> total (T). The truncated approval total for that candidate is denoted
> by L.
>
> The amount of vote used up on each ballot that votes for that
> candidate is
>
> U = max(Q - L, 0.0) / max(max(T,Q) - L, eps),
> where eps is a small number > 0, say 1.e-9.
>
> This is just (Q - L) / (T - L), restricted to lie between 0.0 and 1.0.
>
> Since truncated ballots will lose their vote completely (and thus the
> U factor is irrelevant for those ballots), the truncation factor
> adjustment lets untruncated ballots transfer more of their strength.
>
> The rescale factor on each ballot voting for the last seated candidate
> is thus
>
> F = 1.0 - U
>
> Advantages:
>
> ATF is monotonic and Droop-proportional.
>
> Approval ballot is the simplest format.
>
> With multiple winners, Approval strategy for the approval cutoff is
> less important. Voters can simply approve of all candidates that they
> feel best represent their positions.
>
> Each round is summable (though the overall election is not), and there
> are only Nseats rounds, unlike STV.
>
> The Truncation sum, L, reduces the vote loss that is usually
> associated with STV. In fact, the truncation transfer factor
> adjustment could be applied to any quota-based PR method that is
> subject to truncated ballot vote loss.
>
> ATF may not be the most ideal PR , but it would be the simplest to
> implement quickly.
>
> Ted
>
> On 03 Dec 2011 14:31:16 -0800, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>>
>> I left out one of the most important advantages of PAL voting: that it's dead
>> simple for voters. Though you can vote a more-expressive ballot if you want to,
>> a simple bullet vote is enough to give good, proportional but not
>> party-centric, results.
>>
>> Jameson
>>
>> 2011/12/3 Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>
>>
>> Does "American PR" have a specific meaning yet? I'm sure I'll be in favor
>> of it, whatever PR variant it is; but while I'm still ignorant, let me
>> guess a little.
>>
>> I doubt it's a mixed-member system. They're good, but the US, despite (or
>> perhaps because of) being one of the most partisan countries around, has
>> too much suspicion of "party machines" for that to catch on.
>>
>> So that leaves ... I guess the most-probable options are global STV or STV
>> in small multimember districts (3-5 members).
>>
>> Again, these are both quite good systems I'd support. But if it's not too
>> late to offer a suggestion... I'd strongly encourage you to consider
>> something like PAL representation. It's certainly not the simplest system
>> there is, but then no PR system is really simple. And as advantages you
>> get:
>> -- High potential for 100% continuity (if the statewide gerrymander was
>> fairly proportional, and if third parties don't pick up any seats). This is
>> a HUGE advantage when selling to incumbents. I mean, seriously, tremendous.
>> -- Voters and/or peers have the real power to remove even the most
>> well-encrusted incumbent if they sour on him or her. That is, it's
>> voter-centric, not party-centric
>> -- Almost every voter gets their own local representative WHOM THEY VOTED
>> FOR. This is absolutely something that would resonate with US voters,
>> raised on tales of "No taxation without representation".??
>>
>> Check it out.
>>
>> (And yes, I think that we can work together over PR, even if we don't see
>> eye-to-eye on single winner systems.)
>>
>> Jameson
>> 2011/12/3 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
>>
>> American PR is a coming. ??You must decide if you want to keep
>> quibbling over the best single-winner election rule or push hard for a
>> better mix of multi and single-winner election rules in the US.
>>
>> dlw
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Rob Richie <rr at fairvote.org>
>> Date: Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 11:05 AM
>> Subject: Re: how goes American PR?
>> To: David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
>>
>> A little slow in getting our American PR-like plans drawn, but we'll
>> have them done for hte whole country in early 2012 and heat up in our
>> outreach... getting some related opeds.
>>
>> Next year should be a good one for the idea -- ??lots of chances to
>> talk about it.
>> Rob
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:26 PM, David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I wonder if tea-partiers unhappy w. the Republican party might get
>> in on it?
>>
>> dlw
>>
>> --
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> "Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"
>>
>> Rob Richie
>> Executive Director
>>
>> FairVote????
>> 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
>> Takoma Park, MD 20912
>> www.fairvote.org?? rr at fairvote.org
>> (301) 270-4616
>>
>> Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations --
>> see http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider?
>> ? a gift to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's?? CFC
>> number is 10132.) Thank you!
>>
>> ----
>> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>> info
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
--
araucaria dot araucana at gmail dot com
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list