On Apr 27, 2010, at 6:09 AM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
> 2010/4/27 Raph Frank <raph...@gmail.com>
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.qu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Why not:
> > - ranked votes
> > - STV for council. Keep track of which members are elected first and second,
> > one of them will be VP.
> > - Condorcet winner among the councilmembers is P. (You could use original
> > ballots or have the council revote.)
> > - VP is first councilmember, or, if that person is P, second councilmember.
>
> The order of election with PR-STV shouldn't be used to determine VP,
> all seats are equal.
>
> Why?
>
> Actually, it could be "first seat", or "plurality winner", which is mostly
> equivalent. This would help IFF you wanted to increase decrease the
> probability of a simple majority disproportionately sweeping P and VP. Since
> it's only VP we're talking about, the chance of plurality-style strategy is
> slim.
The problem with FPTP in this case is that it's largely accidental. In the
obvious counterexample, a significant majority of voter splits their vote
across several clones, causing their representatives to be elected late, even
though they have the most support.
One way to order the winners in an STV election is to count for the the
original board, and then re-count for successively smaller groups, but with
only the most recent winners eligible, giving a complete ordering of the board.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
