<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">In response to my post on open and closed lists Alex small wrote:<BR>
<BR>
"Your goal here is to protect voters from themselves. I think it's pretty<BR>
clear that when voters divide their votes among lists they run the risk of<BR>
electing a less preferred candidate from one of the lists."<BR>
<BR>
No, I wouldn't say that. There is no need for voters to run the risk of electing a candidate they don't like and didn't vote for if STV ( or possibly PAV ) is used. In STV your vote can only count for the candidates you express a preference for, not for candidates on the same list that you didn't vote for and don't like.<BR>
<BR>
Alex also wrote:<BR>
<BR>
"Now, admittedly, I'm the guy who said STV shouldn't be used until 80% of<BR>
voters in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Palm Beach "axis of befuddlement"<BR>
understand it. My main concern is that the mechanics of the system, and<BR>
the possible consequences of actions, be easy to understand. STV flunks<BR>
the simplicity test IMO, even though it does a decent job of protecting<BR>
voters from themselves. List systems that allow cross-over voting pass<BR>
the simplicity test, even though they don't protect voters from<BR>
themselves. "<BR>
<BR>
I don't think this is true. The sequence of events party A supporters voting for candidate B1 ( who they like) and thereby electing candidate B2 ( who they don't like) is not the simplest example of cause and effect.<BR>
<BR>
In STV possible consequences of actions are quite straight forward to understand. If you vote for a candidate and he/she is elected the whole or part of your vote may ( depending on the counting system) be transferred to your next choice. If your first choice is eliminated then your vote is transferred to your next choice, etc.<BR>
<BR>
It is only vital that people understand the voting method ( the ability to write the numbers 1 to 30 in sequence is not beyond the capacity of most people) for an electoral system, not necessarily every detail of the counting system ( though this is of course desirable). For example in a referendum voters in Wellington New Zealand approved Meek STV as the system for local elections. Meek STV is not the simplest thing in the world to understand and I doubt strongly that every person who voted in favour understood every detail of Meek STV counting.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Adam Tarr wrote:<BR>
<BR>
"I read your example as an excellent argument for proportional approval voting (PAV). Voters can vote across party lines without fear of supporting a candidate they don't like, and of course it's as easy to vote in as open list or even multi-winner plurality."<BR>
<BR>
Adam could you provide a description of the method for a system of proportional approval voting that needs the above criteria? I've made several attempts to devise such a method and must admit failure.<BR>
<BR>
David Gamble<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>