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
