--- On Tue, 5/5/09, Raph Frank <raph...@gmail.com> wrote: > My preference is to use a different method of counting for > election > and elimination. > > Election: Vote is shared between all candidates at current > rank > Elimination: Vote is given to each candidate at current > rank at full strength
Why only fraction of the vote in the election case? Doesn't a vote to a party mean that any candidate of the party may use it at full strength? Naturally once someone uses it it is not available to others at full strength anymore. Related observation: If there are many votes with "direct inheritance" (e.g. bullet vote C111) then the counting process may use the knowledge that this vote will be in any case inherited by G11 and P1. We can sum up this kind of votes to P1 from the beginning and allocate seats to P1 (in top down style as in list based methods). > > Vote C121>C211 is the same as vote > > C121>C211>G21>P2>ANYONE. Note that > > I assumed that the last ranked > > candidate determines the order of > > inheritance (unlike in the Maltese > > proposals where the first preference > > determined the party). If the voter > > would like the first preference to > > determine the order of inheritance > > she could vote e.g. C121>C211>G12. > > It might be better to just have a default + override > method. That was my intention. => By default the vote will be inherited along the given tree hierarchy. All voting patterns are still possible (=override the default). Simplest syntax for most common votes, complex syntax for the more uncommon voting patterns. > So the 'ANYONE' choice allows voters to force their > rankings to end? Yes, that was just my style of indicating that "no inheritance" means the same as "inherited by all". Just a natural way of expressing how some intermediate levels are skipped. Also other syntaxes could be used (any good proposals?). > > A bullet vote with no inheritance > > could with this ballot style be e.g. > > C555>ANYONE. Vote C555>C666>ANYONE > > would be a traditional STV vote that > > may become exhausted after C555 and > > C666 have been eliminated (or elected). > > It depends on what is the most convenient. Do we > automatically assume > that the voters want to expand their vote to include the > tree or do we > assume that the would rather bullet vote unless told > otherwise. The basic idea was to develop a syntax that makes the most voting convenient. I assumed that political tree-like thinking is common. For some voters even bullet votes (with default inheritance) may be sufficient. Many others might be happy with ranking some of some of the closest candidates, e.g. C113>C119>C112, and leave the remaining fragments of the vote to their favourite group and party (G11, P1). > Also, there is an issue with inheritance between > parties. If the > votes are being combined using a PR-STV method, then you > might want > your vote > > C111 > > expanded to > > C111>G11>P1>PX>PY... > > Where party X and Y are parties picked by P1. The "tree assumption" includes also option to use also party coalitions/alliances, e.g. A1, P12, G123, C1234. This makes it possible to group parties (e.g. the left wing). Full ordering as in your example (P1>PX>PY instead of P1>PX=PY) would require the voter to write the inheritance order explicitly in the ballot. Giving the remaining fragments to the alliance would be easy (even bullet voting would do that). > > This approach may easily get too > > complex for such traditional STV > > ballot style where all candidates > > are explicitly listed. > > It depends on how many candidates are running. Yes. My assumption was to prepare for expanding the number of candidates and groupings. With less than 10 candidates the voters may be required to rank so many of them that the vote will be "complete enough". If one's favourite party has 10 subgroups with 10 candidates each, then listing all of them (or all relevant of them) to guarantee that the vote stays within the correct party will be tedious. > It still suffers from the counting problem if the plan is > to have > national level elections. > > It would in fact be more complex than PR-STV ballots as > there are > additional choices. What is the problem that makes this too complex? The numerous ties do add complexity but maybe computers can handle the counting process. Btw, one way that this approach might somewhat simplify things is that the votes could be shorter than in STV. (There might be such shortening needs also to keep the votes unidentifiable (to avoid vote buying and coercion). Maybe limiting the number of entries in the ballot could be used in some cases for this reason.) > > vote could be simple a > > list of (maybe hand written) codes, > > e.g. "13 63 23" where numbers could > > refer also to groupings. > > It might be easier to have the parties allowed to register > codes. One factor that influences this choice is difference between manually written codes vs. use of voting machines. Simple (handwritten) numbers may be easy to read without errors and quick to write. Mnemonic names are easier to check after one has filled the ballot. Juho ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info