[EM] Resume: Proportional multi-winner ranked voting methods - guidelines?

[VoteFair]

Actually VoteFair ranking would work quite well for electing members to 
the Norwegian parliament, or any other parliament/legislature where 
highly proportional results are important.  Doing so simply involves 
choosing the right numbers.

Specifically, for the case of Norway where there are 19 districts 
("constituencies"), and which has a unicameral (rather than bicameral) 
parliament, I suggest:

Category 1: Each district ("constituency") would elect 4 members using 
VoteFair representation ranking. Typically the two dominant parties in 
that district would win 2 seats each.  (If a nation had lots of 
districts or states, then only two members would be elected this way.)

Category 2: Each district would also elect an additional 1 or 2 members 
using VoteFair "districtwide" partial-proportional ranking (using only 
the ballots in that district).  Typically these seats would be won by 
members of that district's non-dominant parties.

Category 3: An additional 30 (or 20 or 40 or whatever) seats would be 
elected using VoteFair "nationwide" partial-proportional ranking (using 
all the ballots across the nation).  Although this method includes the 
word "partial" in its name, the method becomes fully proportional simply 
by choosing to use this method for lots of seats.  These seats would be 
won by whichever parties did not win "enough" seats at the district level.

Yes, as explained in "Ending The Hidden Unfairness In U.S. Elections" 
for use in the United States there would be only a few (of what I'm 
calling here) Category 3 seats.  That's because in the U.S. 
proportionality by state is as important as proportionality by political 
party.  That's also why I included the word "partial" in the name 
VoteFair partial-proportional ranking, namely because in the U.S. case 
it does not cover enough seats to ensure full party-based proportionality.

Getting back to the case of Norway, or elsewhere where party 
proportionality is more important than location proportionality, simply 
filling lots of nationwide seats using VoteFair partial-proportional 
ranking achieves a high degree of proportionality.

As part of this suggestion, VoteFair party ranking would also be used. 
It eliminates the need to set a quota for the minimum percentage of 
votes needed (by a very minor party) to win a single seat.  Of course 
only a voter's top-ranked party would be used for the proportionality 
calculations.  (The full ranking would be used to limit how many 
candidates each party can offer in that district's election.)

Most importantly, VoteFair ranking elects the entire parliament without 
allowing political-party leaders to choose which candidates fill that 
party's seats.  Why is this important?  It allows the voters to control 
the parties.  This greatly reduces the corruption that inevitably occurs 
when insiders have control of which candidates win that party's seats.

As a reminder, VoteFair ranking eliminates the need to ask candidates to 
choose which kind of seat they are competing for.  Every candidate is 
competing for the Category 1 seats, but they have an opportunity to win 
a Category 2 seat in their district if their party is medium-popular in 
that district.  And every candidate who fails to win a Category 1 or 2 
seat has another chance to win a Category 3 seat if the candidate is 
popular in his/her district and is in a party that failed to win enough 
of the Category 1 and 2 seats.

The situation in the United States is quite complex, which is why it was 
challenging to design VoteFair ranking to meet the needs here.  In 
contrast, smaller nations -- that have only a few big metropolitan areas 
(instead of hundreds as in the U.S.) -- can use a simplified version of 
VoteFair ranking.

Thank you for asking for clarification instead of just assuming that 
VoteFair ranking is only suitable for use in the U.S.

And thank you for asking questions because I'm sure that lots of other 
readers have the same (or equivalent) questions.

Richard Fobes


On 5/22/2017 5:44 PM, Armando wrote:
> Dear Richard Forbes,
> a special thank to you for your ready answers. Actually I already met your website years ago, and I found it one of the most fascinating tool for internet voting.
> I’m not an expert, so I’m not sure to have well understood, correct me if I mistake:
> your systems seems to fit specially context like USA, where traditionally the relationship within the constituencies and their representatives is harder than in non-anglosaxon countries. It seems that they are the best solution for countries who don’t prioritize proportionality, who look for local representation, but however want some pluralism.
> Since in my view and for my needs my priorities are perfect proportionality and political representation (instead of local representation), so nation-wide district are not a problem, I’m correct in believing that your systems don’t fit to me more than a proportional condorcet?
>
> Thank you again
>
>
>> El 22 may 2017, a las 12:18, VoteFair <electionmethods at votefair.org> escribió:
>>
>> On 5/21/2017 7:10 PM, Armando wrote:
>>> I want to thank you everybody for your useful and attentive comments,
>>> although I remained silent I read everything. I’m glad to have found
>>> this mailing list, very interesting discussions.
>>
>> Thank you for letting us know that our answers were useful.
>>
>>> In these months I continued discussing about these themes in my organization.
>>
>> Thank you for spreading useful voting knowledge.
>>
>>> After reading your reflections, actually I think that any
>>> proportional multi-winner Condorcet (different from traditional STV)
>>> in very large magnitude constituencies (more similar too original
>>> Hare idea) should not be affected by the various problems you
>>> mentioned and satisfy my original question. Soon I’ll send you
>>> some more questions, since you are so kind.
>>
>> Based on your current thinking it's clear -- to me -- that you understand what we wrote.
>>
>>> Meanwhile I’ll be thankful for any advice of further readings if you have.
>>
>> You, and we, are exploring frontier territory, so there's not a lot of formal writing about "proportional multi-winner Condorcet" methods beyond what we've told you about.
>>
>> If you, or anyone, has specific questions about what I wrote regarding this topic in "Ending The Hidden Unfairness In U.S. Elections", just ask.
>>
>> Richard Fobes
>>
>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Armando Pitocco
>>
>> ----
>> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>