--- On Sun, 16/11/08, Jobst Heitzig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I want with this method is a maximally simple
> multi-winner method that does not rely on lists but is
> focussed on individual candidates and that makes sure that
> all large-enough minorities are represented. It is not
> important that it results in proportionality, hence it needs
> no transfer of excess votes.
Why not proportionality if you can also easily get that?
There are some problematic cases like many minor (minority) candidates ranking
some very popular candidate as their second choice.
The minor candidates could also form groups that are likely to get many enough
votes to get one of them elected and then all rank each others at top. (Then
some same size groups could agree to rank each others next etc.) This way the
method could become a bit more proportional.
Juho
P.S. Yes, this kind of methods are interesting since although this limits
voters' freedom to rank candidates a bit this approach makes it possible to
support higher number of candidates, keeps voting simple and avoids too short
votes, and gives additional information on the opinion of the candidates to the
voters (and also binds candidates to this).
P.P.S. If one wants to further simplify things one could allow the voters to
name groups of voters (= ties allowed, or in practice these groups could have
names). And further, one could use a tree like structure of the candidates
(except that then we would already almost have "party lists" that you didn't
want). Anyway, good to find a good balance between STV and simpler methods for
each need.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
