[EM] What was the outcome of the discussion on unifying behind a "simple and better" method?

Stéphane Rouillon stephane.rouillon at sympatico.ca
Sat Oct 8 08:02:49 PDT 2011

  For multiple winner electoral methods, one can look at STV promotional 
If you are interested in a more revolutionary method that uses sampling 
to obtain equivalent advantages of a huge single STV district without 
the huge
number of candidates it implies, look at SPPA. I attach the english 
material I used
to present SPPA t o the Mid West Political Science Association at 
Chicago in 2007.
Since SPPA does not uses constituencies, it fits better the need to 
electronical community of interest, despite their geographical 
scattering. It links well
with Youtube for debate diffusion because listeners for a particular 
debate are disseminated
throughout the country.

On 2011-10-08 08:47, Jameson Quinn wrote:
> I don't think that there was a conclusive result. Here's my impression 
> of the tentative results of that discussion:
>     * During that discussion, SODA voting
>       <http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/SODA> was invented.
>     * There was some discussion of the simplest Condorcet method. To
>       my mind, people made a convincing argument that
>       Copeland//Approval (ranking at any level counts as approval,
>       most-approved candidate of those with most victories wins) was
>       the simplest method and overall a pretty good one.
>     * There was also discussion of uniting behind approval as a first
>       step to reform, although there are certainly those who are
>       dissatisfied with this option.
>     * The consensus statement
>       <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oyJLxI9dciXBbowM5mougnbGHzkL3Ue1QkD8nnMwWLg/edit?hl=en_US>
>       discussion, still active, grew out of this discussion.
> As to resources for educating a non-academic audience... I think that 
> the consensus statement, linked above, is a pretty good one. I'd also 
> offer my quora answers about voting systems 
> <http://www.quora.com/Jameson-Quinn/Voting-Systems/answers>. And I'd 
> be interested in helping create such resources. If you could be a 
> little more specific about audience and format, I'll try to help.
> Jameson
> 2011/10/7 Duane Johnson <duane.johnson at gmail.com 
> <mailto:duane.johnson at gmail.com>>
>     I recall that some time ago there was a discussion about finding
>     the best "simple" method and promoting that as a group. Currently,
>     there are many discussions going on with regard to political
>     change (Occupy Wall Street movement) and what would be the most
>     effective ways to make a difference. Can anyone point me to a wiki
>     page or other URL that would be instructive for a non-academic
>     audience?
>     Thank you,
>     Duane Johnson
>     ----
>     Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
>     list info
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111008/71142c73/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ModelSppaEng.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 43520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111008/71142c73/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SPPAforMPSA13042007.ppt
Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint
Size: 153600 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111008/71142c73/attachment.ppt>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list