Hi,
an other aspect to this is the development of a posteriori to election
criteria to
measure satisfaction of the electorate from the results.
Forget about the electoral method, just focus on the result and the
electorate will.
Individually taken, it is easy to quantify how much an elector is
satisfied with
the results from its own participation to an election. Among all the
candidates
a candidate could have an influence on their election, the ratio of
these candidates
getting elected represents the satisfaction rate of the elector. How do
you get
the full will of that elector? Just assume all voters proposed with the
same choices
than that elector make the same picks. The result represents the 100%
satisfaction
result. Some examples:
With an FPTP election, 3 districts:
District 1:
Blue* 45%
Red 35%
Yellow 20%
District 2:
Blue* 51%
Red 30%
Yellow 19%
District 3:
Blue 25%
Red 30%
Yellow* 45%
The 3 elected MP (2 Blue, 1 Yellow) produce an average individual
satisfaction rate of 47%.
With an STV election, 3 seats in a single super-district, let's assume
following ballots and results:
10%: B3 B2 Y2 R1 R2 Y1 Y3 R3 B1
30%: R1 R2 R3 B1 B2 B3 Y1 Y2 Y3
51%: B1 Y1 Y2 Y3 R1 R3 R2 B3 B1
9%: Y1 B1 R1 B2 R2 Y3 Y3 R3 B3
Elected: B1 Y1 R1.
Individual satisfaction of the first group of voters: 0% (none elected
among the 3 first choices)
Individual satisfaction of the second group of voters: 33,3% (one
elected among the 3 first choices)
Individual satisfaction of the third group of voters: 66,7% (two elected
among the 3 first choices)
Individual satisfaction of the fourth group of voters: 100% (all elected
among the 3 first choices)
Global individual satisfaction of all voters: 10% x 0% + 30% x 33,3% +
51% x 66,7% + 9% x 100% = 53%
Typically STV produces a global individual satisfaction rates around
twice FPTP rates for the simulations
I have made yet...
Almost all election method can be measured this criteria (it makes no
sense for a fully random selection).
This does not covers the layering effect of multiple representative
levels, but it emphasizes the mismatch
between the will of electors and the results.
Stéphane Rouillon
On 2012-04-27 15:26, Richard Fobes wrote:
Recently I realized that in our Declaration, and in our discussions,
we have failed to explain and explore the "amplification" effect that
occurs as a result of, for a lack of a better term at the moment,
"layering."
Here is how I explained it in the proposal I referred to earlier:
"Winning an election with less than half the votes might seem like a
small unfairness, but the effect is huge because of a layering effect.
Although each Congressman typically got a ballot mark from about one
out of two voters in the general election, he or she got a ballot mark
from only about one out of four voters (based on cross-party counting)
if the Congressman competed against a strong candidate in the primary
election. Another layer occurs because only slightly more than half
the members of Congress need to vote in favor of a new law to get it
passed, so just those Congressmen got ballot marks from only about one
out of eight U.S. voters, which is about 12% of U.S. voters. Yet even
more layers are involved because most Congressmen first serve as
state-level officials, and the state-level election process similarly
filters out the problem-solving leaders that most voters want. Adding
in two more layers to account for mainstream-media influence and low
voter turnout easily accounts for how each law passed in Congress
represents the desires of only 1% of the U.S. population."
(The full proposal is at:
http://www.the99declaration.org/4408/ban_single_mark_ballots_from_congressional_elections?recruiter_id=4408
)
I'm interested in any ideas for how this concept can be explained more
clearly, especially if someone can think of an appropriate analogy or
metaphor or diagram.
Richard Fobes
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
info
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
