<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Apr 28, 2010, at 6:37 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote">2010/4/28 Raph Frank <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:raphfrk@gmail.com">raphfrk@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); margin-top: 0pt; margin-right: 0pt; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-left: 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; "> <div class="im">On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Juho <<a href="mailto:juho4880@yahoo.co.uk">juho4880@yahoo.co.uk</a>> wrote:<br> > Do you mean that voters would concentrate on the first rankings and<br> > strongest candidates? The used method should be such that this kind of<br> > behaviour will not be rational.<br> <br> </div>Yes. If the order of election matters, then your first rank is<br> effectively for the president's position .. and it is a plurality<br> election.<br><br></blockquote><div><br>Minor note: I proposed using order-of-election for vice president, not for president.<br><br>How about this: Elect the council with STV. Elect the president from the council with Condorcet. Elect a two-member subset of that council with PR-STV. Any members of that two-member council who aren't the president are vice presidents.<br></div></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font>It gives a variable number of vice presidents. However, it seems like a very fair all-around system, and needs no innovative new methods.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div>If one uses the same votes in all three elections or in the latter two then the result could be quite proportional and quite free of strategic incentives. This method doesn't have the burden of keeping the president included in the elected "P+VPs" set (that is an "innovative new method"). But as a result the number of VPs may vary. If the president is not included in the VP set then the president is probably a compromise candidate from a small grouping. That causes some distortion in proportionality of the P+VPs set, but on the other hand I understood that there is also a strong interest to elect a centrist president and therefore this solution may be preferred to full proportionality. (Also the method where the president was forced to be included in the (fixed size) P+VPs set has this property.) We may thus not want full proportionality in the P+VPs set if we can find a good president "outside of the few leading groupings".</div></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br>Or, if you elected a 3-member subset, I suspect it would be very rare that the president was not in that subset. If she wasn't, and if 3 VPs were too many, you could then repeat the STV to choose two of those 3, or let the board elect 2, or let the president pick 2, or eliminate the Condorcet loser among those 3.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We are now sliding back to the world of "innovative new methods". I think none of the solutions is perfect (the first one is maybe the best of them). But if one wants an exact number of VPs then something must be done to reduce their number by one (or add by one). One more approach would be to use STV to pick either two of all the candidates depending on if the president is included in the set of three or not (one needs however an additional rule on what to do in the rare case that the president is included in the two but not in the three).</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> <br>(I still like my RBV method, and would still be willing to code it open-source if the Czech greens are interested. But I understand if they want something more proven.)<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I didn't form yet any strong opinions on the RBV method. Is monotonicity the target that makes you like it more than STV?</div><div><br></div><div>Juho</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br>Jameson Quinn <br></div></div><br></blockquote></div><br></body></html>