[Election-Methods] Best electoral system under real circumstances
I've read in this list that possibly the worst electoral system used is Brazilian open list PR. In this year, Brazilian Congress discuted the change of electoral law to closed lists, single member plurality or MMP. Presidents, Governors and Mayors are elected by top-two runoff. I think this method is sufficiently good. Maybe ranked methods are not suitable for Brazilian voters' degree of skill, and for voting machines. Federal, State and Muncipal representatives are elected according open lists. The main problem of this method is the excessive district magnitude (8 in least populated states up to 70 in São Paulo) and resulting high number of candidates. Transfers of surpluses are unpredictable. My suggestions for improvements of this system are: - reduce district size to 3, 4 or 5; - limit number of candidates by party. Candidates should be nominated by primary elections. - prohibit surplus transfers among different parties. - adoption of STV in the future. Do you agree with these measures? ___ Diego Renato dos Santos Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[Election-Methods] RE : Best electoral system under real circumstances
Hi, --- Diego Renato [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : I've read in this list that possibly the worst electoral system used is Brazilian open list PR. In this year, Brazilian Congress discuted the change of electoral law to closed lists, single member plurality or MMP. Presidents, Governors and Mayors are elected by top-two runoff. I think this method is sufficiently good. Maybe ranked methods are not suitable for Brazilian voters' degree of skill, and for voting machines. Federal, State and Muncipal representatives are elected according open lists. The main problem of this method is the excessive district magnitude (8 in least populated states up to 70 in São Paulo) and resulting high number of candidates. Transfers of surpluses are unpredictable. My suggestions for improvements of this system are: - reduce district size to 3, 4 or 5; - limit number of candidates by party. Candidates should be nominated by primary elections. - prohibit surplus transfers among different parties. - adoption of STV in the future. Do you agree with these measures? I don't remember that it is possible for surplus transfers to go to different parties. The problem is that even within the same party list, you don't know what you're getting. Voters don't necessarily vote by party, and party lists don't necessarily form by party. It was brought up in that discussion that the same electoral method works well in Finland. I would guess the major difference is that Finland is more parliamentary, so it's more important to vote based on party and not just individual. I think it makes sense in theory to limit the number of candidates a party can nominate, to the number of seats that are being contested. Naturally parties do not want to stick to this limit, since the more votes they can get, the better. STV would probably help. I don't think STV has ever been used to elect the congress in a presidential system though. Reducing district magnitude would probably help also, since it would have the effect of increasing the proportion of elected candidates who actually received a share of votes that is large enough to justify being elected. (If it will continue to be the case that candidates on a party list have little in common politically, then at least the individuals who are elected should be justifiable.) Some links on the subject: http://aceproject.org/regions-en/jne/BR/case-studies/esy_br http://countrystudies.us/brazil/100.htm http://lasa.international.pitt.edu/LASA97/desposato.pdf Kevin Venzke _ Ne gardez plus qu'une seule adresse mail ! Copiez vos mails vers Yahoo! Mail Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [Election-Methods] RE : Best electoral system under real circumstances
2007/11/19, Kevin Venzke [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I don't remember that it is possible for surplus transfers to go to different parties. According Brazilian law, parties of same coalition are counted as a single party. After elections, is not rare these parties to separate to opposite political sides. It was brought up in that discussion that the same electoral method works well in Finland. I would guess the major difference is that Finland is more parliamentary, so it's more important to vote based on party and not just individual. Some congressmen want a constitutional reform to restore a parliamentary system, but in two referenda, people voted for presidential one. Reducing district magnitude would probably help also, since it would have the effect of increasing the proportion of elected candidates who actually received a share of votes that is large enough to justify being elected. (If it will continue to be the case that candidates on a party list have little in common politically, then at least the individuals who are elected should be justifiable.) Some links on the subject: http://aceproject.org/regions-en/jne/BR/case-studies/esy_br http://countrystudies.us/brazil/100.htm http://lasa.international.pitt.edu/LASA97/desposato.pdf Thanks. In this year, the Supreme Court resolved that party-switching can be punished by removal from office. _ Diego Renato dos Santos Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [Election-Methods] Best electoral system under real circumstances
I restrict my commenting to Condorcet. On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 23:56:32 +0200 Juho wrote: ... Single member: Does this mean a dual party system based on single seat districts? Is that what Brazil wants? (I don't yet.) MMP: More complex than open list. What is the rationale? Maybe interest to have local single seat districts to elect very local (small district) representatives? Is this what Brazil wants? Isn't basic (open list based) proportional representation in bigger districts enough? Top-two runoff (for single winner elections): Yes, in many cases good enough but has also some clear problems and can be improved. I don't think ranked methods (e.g. Condorcet that is a more compromise candidate oriented (good or bad) and that is better from strategic voting point of view) would be too difficult. At least if the number of candidates is not large (7 candidates in the last presidential elections according to wiki) then also the ballots can be e.g. some simple ticking exercises. (The method should tolerate/allow some ticking errors to avoid losing the votes of people who are not that familiar with using the method.) As a Condorcet backer, let me talk to voters a bit: If you would be happy with Plurality, voting for one candidate and indicating no preference among the rest of the field - do EXACTLY that vote. Since you choose to ask nothing beyond showing preference for one and treating all others as equal bottom rank, your vote is simple. If you would like to vote a first choice above a second choice, with the rest of the field sharing bottom rank, vote FS. If you would like to vote for two as equally liked first choice, with the rest of the field sharing bottom rank, vote P=P. For a more complex vote you can vote such as FA=FBSA=SB=SCTA=TB - where = connects those you like equally and separates those to the left (liked better) from those to the right (liked less). You do not have to rank all candidates - those not ranked are treated as liked less. How the voters mark ballots needs thought. For example: Assigning the same number to multiple candidates indicates equality. Assigning different numbers to two candidates indicates difference in liking. Matters not whether the numbers are numerically adjacent. Whether 5 is more or less than 6 has to be agreed on, but I am not sure. There is less reason to do runoffs than with Plurality - voters can vote their thoughts as to preference in more detail with Condorcet than with such as Plurality. Condorcet classifies some vote counts as cycles. All members of a cycle are better-liked than the field, and runoffs MIGHT be useful among them - certainly deciphering which cycle member should win is a source of arguments. There is no value in demanding that all candidates be ranked - voters can rank all they see as better than scum, and demanding that they rank what they see as scum introduces noise with no positive value. Juho Laatu On Nov 19, 2007, at 20:50 , Diego Renato wrote: I've read in this list that possibly the worst electoral system used is Brazilian open list PR. In this year, Brazilian Congress discuted the change of electoral law to closed lists, single member plurality or MMP. Presidents, Governors and Mayors are elected by top-two runoff. I think this method is sufficiently good. Maybe ranked methods are not suitable for Brazilian voters' degree of skill, and for voting machines. I write above about required voter skill. There has been plenty written about the stupidity demonstrated in US installation and misuse of voting machines. I feel strongly that reasonable application of brain power and honest intentions should be able to get past these catastrophes. ... ___ Diego Renato dos Santos -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026 Do to no one what you would not want done to you. If you want peace, work for justice. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
