<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Aug 25, 2011, at 2:29 PM, Peter Zbornik wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Hi,<div><br></div><div>I aggree it would be good to make a separate statement for proportional election methods. </div></blockquote><div><br></div>Agreed. Need something brief here that some of us promote such for such as legislatures and are working on a separate effort for this. <br><blockquote type="cite"><div><br></div><div>Some other comments for the record:</div><div><br></div><div>Looking at single-winner elections</div> <div>1) What about multiple round single-winner methods? For instance the Brittish conservatives vote on who to eliminate each round . The candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated, using only bullet voting. So far, as I have understood, the only disadvantage with such an election system is many election rounds. </div></blockquote><div><br></div>Only need a few words here, if any - seems like this might be done with Approval, whatever may get done for other elections.</div><div><br></div><div>Primary elections should be workable with whatever is done for the main election (minimize related costs - or perhaps with something simpler). Still, how much need for primaries if main election can tolerate multiple candidates from any one party.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"> <div>2) All of the endorsed methods could be improved by simply letting the top two contenders meet in a second round. Tactical voting might lead to changes in preference orderings between the rounds and thus to improved results by introducting a second round.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Plurality needs to have a second round since its voters sometimes need to, but cannot, vote for more than one in the main election. With better voting methods second rounds are less needed, and ARE an expense for all, including the voters.</div><div><br></div><div>Agreed that making second rounds standard could have improved results - unless it cost too much and voters react in a less than useful way.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"> <div>3) what about the option "None of the above", the blank vote, are we neutral to this option? I certainly think this option is good and important.</div></blockquote><div> When is this a useful addition?</div><div><br></div><div>Argue again that Condorcet should be considered a single method here - and something said about such as cycles existing, though not necessarily what to do about them.</div><div><br></div><div>Claim that what I wrote about simplifying Condorcet voting <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 18px; ">August 24, 2011 3:05:19 PM EDT needs to be seen by more at this point.</span></div><div><br></div><div>Dave Ketchum</div><blockquote type="cite"><div><br></div><div>Looking at proportional elections: </div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div>4) Aren't we in a position to </div><div>a) recommend Meek's method ahead of IRV-STV, when it comes to a better proportional representation?</div><div>b) recommend IRV-STV (scottish STV) for its simplicity and relative ease of being explained</div> <div>c) recommend fractional vote transfer in STV? I cannot endorse random vote transfer in STV.</div><div>d) fractional quotas instead of integer quotas? I cannot endorse integer quotas.</div><div>e) be able to recommend at least one Condorcet-STV method, which is used somewhere?</div> <div>f) endorse that the majority rule should be fulfilled, i.e.that a majority of voters get a majority of the seats? I would not like to endorse proportional election methods violating the majority rule, like IRV-STV and the Hare quota. The Hare quota with Meek's method might however satisfy the majority criterion, as the only STV method (have seen no proof though).</div> <div>6) proportional election methods are most certainly not only appropriate for elections to state legislative, but also for elections in any organisation, the statement limits the scope of consideration to public elections, especially to parliamentary bodies.</div> <div>7) I do not think that it is a good idea to recommend proportional methods outside the statement, i.e. at the time of signature.</div><div><br></div><div>Well normally, i.e. in our party, alternative proposals are voted upon.</div> <div>If the proposals are supported, then they are included in the final text.</div><div>Sometimes a qualified majority is needed (like two thirds).</div><div>As this is an "expert opinion", it is important that almost all experts agree, ofherwise it is not an expert opinion.</div> <div>So the qualified majority quota could be higher, maybe 80 percent or five sixths (used in Sweden for some constitutional changes). </div><div>Then the other question is who is an expert.</div><div>Someone who has published at least one paper in a peer-reviewed journal.</div> <div>Well that's how policy is made in politics.</div><div>I think noone has come up with something better, except for enlightened dictatorship :o)</div><div><br></div><div>In any case, it is great a statement is being made and I hope the people on this list will be able to agree on a final wording.</div> <div><br></div><div>Best regards</div><div>Peter Zborník</div><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:km_elmet@lavabit.com">km_elmet@lavabit.com</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">Peter Zbornik wrote:<br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Dear all,<br> please consider including a list of endorsed election methods for proportional elections, just as you have done for single winner elections. Otherwise the bold statement will just cover one special case in election theory - single winner elections.<br> Furthermore you might consider covering the issues of<br> (i) proportional rank orders. For instance when electing the party list in primaries, in countries where closed lists are used.<br> (ii) proportional rank orders to elect a hierarchy of functions proportionally, like board president, vice presidents and other board members.<br> </blockquote> <br></div> I think it would be better to have a separate statement for details about multiwinner methods than to put everything into one grand document, so as not to burden the latter too greatly. The statement we're considering now could have details about what single-winner methods we agree to support and then say "just about all multiwinner methods but closed list", then, if necessary, have another statement that mentions proportional rank orders, STV/QPQ/Schulze STV, open list, and so on.<br> <br> Perhaps it would be enough to say "anything but closed list" and be done without needing a second statement, as multiwinner methods have the advantage of multiple seats to even out strange results that would otherwise make for a bad method. On the other hand, it may be useful to have a common position on semiproportional methods (SNTV, parallel voting and limited vote systems, and so on).</blockquote></div></div></blockquote><br></div><br></body></html>