I just wanted to point out that actually one can come from open lists towards STV, and from STV towards a party based system with multiple candidates and end up pretty much at the same point.
Juho On 29.10.2011, at 20.21, James Gilmour wrote: > Interesting, but not relevant to what Kristofer had actually written. > Finland uses a party-list voting system - Kristopher was writing about STV, > and specifically about 5-member districts. > James > -----Original Message----- > From: election-methods-boun...@lists.electorama.com > [mailto:election-methods-boun...@lists.electorama.com] On Behalf Of Juho Laatu > Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2011 5:11 PM > To: EM > Subject: Re: [EM] Proportional, Accountable,Local (PAL) representation: isn't > this a big deal? > > On 29.10.2011, at 16.58, James Gilmour wrote: > >> Kristofer Munsterhjelm > Sent: Saturday, October 29, 2011 9:14 AM >>> STV is not mixed member proportional. As for the complexity issue, STV >>> seems to work where it has been implemented. I agree that complexity >>> will put a bound on how large each district can be, but as long as you >>> keep below that size, it should work. >>> >>> If you have a district size of 5 members and 10 parties, that would give >>> a seemingly unmanagable number of 50 candidates. >> >> I think that is most unlikely. The only party that would likely nominate >> five candidates would be one that had reason to believe it >> could win at least four of the five seats in the multi-member district. >> Parties that might have an expectation of winning two seats >> would likely nominate only three candidates. Parties that expected to win >> only one seat would nominate at most two candidates, and >> based on our experience here in Scotland, many would nominate only one. >> >> So the total number of candidates in a 5-member district would almost >> certainly be far short of 50 I think a total of 20 would be >> much more likely. > > Here's some data from last parliamentary elections in Finland. > > The largest multi-member district had 35 representatives and 405 candidates. > All the large parties had 35 candidates. The largest party got 11 > representatives. > > The two smallest multi-member districts had 6 representatives and 94 or 108 > candidates. > > One of the parties grew from 5 representatives to 39 representatives. So it > needed lots of candidates too in order to not run out of candidates in some > districts. > > (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_parliamentary_election,_2011) > > If one has only one or two candidates more than the number of representatives > that this party has or expects to get, then the decision on who will be > elected will be mainly made by the party and not by the voters. Preliminaries > could help a bit by allowing at least the party members to influence. > > If proportional results are counted separately at each district, then it > would be good to have a large number of representatives per district to > achieve accurate proportionality. In order to allow the voters to decide who > will be elected there should be maybe twice as many candidates per each party > as that party will get representatives. In that way no seats are "safe". > > It is also good if there are such candidates that are not likely to be > elected this time but that may gain popularity in these elections and become > elected in the next elections. All this sums up to quite a large number of > candidates. > > My favourite approach to implementing ranked style voting in this kind of > environments would be to combine party affiliation and rankings somehow. The > idea is that even a bullet vote or a short ranked vote would be counted for > the party by default. If one looks this from the open list method point of > view, this could mean just allowing the voter to rank few candidates instead > of naming only one. Already ability to rank three candidates would make party > internal proportionality in open list methods much better. Probably there is > typically no very widespread need to rank candidates of different parties in > this kind of elections, but it ok to support also this if the method and the > requirement of simplicity of voting do allow that. From STV point of view the > problem is how to allow better proportionality and voter decisions instead of > party decisions in some nice way. > > Juho > > > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
