Closed loop elections. See:
http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/features/display.var.1511167.0.0.php
An engineer's answer to voters' imperfect knowledge?
JG
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
ballot papers
are encountered. The quota is reduced by the amount of the non-transferable
votes and the count
begins afresh with the reduced quota. This is not iterative, but it can go
round many cycles.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
papers. The ballot paper
numbers and the list of
issued ballot papers with electors' numbers can be brought together for
examination ONLY by order of
a court.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
ct I
spotted had more than 61,000 valid ballots with 13 candidates. That's a lot of
key-strokes. The
Dáil Éireann has 166 members elected from 42 districts (3, 4 and 5-member), but
it is the number of
candidates that determines the volume of data.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
er scanning, many of
which were OK but not
completely within the high level spec set for automatic processing.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
> From: Kathy Dopp > Sent: 25 May 2007 00:50
> On 5/24/07, James Gilmour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Chris Backert > Sent: 24 May 2007 19:39
> >
> > > For one, saying "can't we just use paper ballots"
> > > ignores the
cording votes. We make special provision for blind voters,
visually impaired
voters and others who require assistance.
James Gilmour (UK)
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
elow or around 1%, but given that the voters were marking another
ballot paper with two Xs
at the same time and this was the first time the current generation of Scottish
electors has used
STV for public elections, the rejection rate was well within expectation.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
a for the Meath constituency are no longer on the Meath
RO's website but can be downloaded from:
www.jamesgilmour.org.uk/Dail-GE2002-Meath-STV-MixedCsv.zip (zipped CSV
file 552 KB)
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
quot;Because we can, we shall", which is
rarely a sound basis for good policy or good practice.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
quot;2" and "3". You may not achieve that (because not enough other voters
agree with you), but that is surely what you are claiming you want.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
tation on this after the elections are over. So we
may yet see the full STV ballot data from all our 2007 local government
elections. Then we might have independent validation of the results and
lots of interesting (and amusing) political and sociological analysis of
the preference patterns.
J
quot;. There is good
evidence from real public elections with STV-PR that attempts at
tactical voting of this kind are unwise. The only good advice for
STV-PR public elections, i.e. with large numbers of voters whose
preferences you cannot possibly know, is "Do NOT attempt to vote
tactic
ant
as ensuring that a lower preference can never count against a higher
preference. Also, the non-monotonic effect cannot be exploited by
either the candidates or the voters, so it is of no practical effect.
It would be nice, but we cannot have it all - at least, not all at
once!!
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 17 April 2007 09:37
> James Gilmour jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk
> > raphfrk at netscape.net> Sent: 16 April 2007 20:08
> > > It might be easier to explain. The real problem with PR-STV is
the
> > > fractional transfers
hrough a secure student portal). There are open source computer
programs readily available that will count the ballot data according to
any of the versions of the rules that have ever been dreamed up.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Without the correct transfers of
surpluses you cannot get a proportional result. Some students' unions
in the UK use this corrupted version, but it cannot rightly be called
"STV-PR" because it distorts the proportionality expressed by the
voters.
James Gilmour
election-meth
l decision making among
> the voters in public elections
Any form of "bullet vote" gives the parties de facto control. Elections
are for electors - or at least, they should be!
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
y-controlled voting at all.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
ead across a wide range of other parties. MPs from 12 different
parties were elected. Changed days from 1951 and 1955 when the two
largest parties together took 97% and 96% of all the votes!! The UK is
the exception that proves Duverger's "law".
James Gilmour
election-methods
is the whole point of STV-PR - to give the voters what
THEY want - which may not be what the parties want. But then,
elections are for electors.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
s the potential to shift
the balance of power - reducing the power of the parties and
increasing the power of the voters. To me the Australian "above the
line voting" is a travesty - they have turned STV-PR into a
closed-list party-list PR system with a little bit of STV tagged on
> From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > Sent: 31 December 2006 02:29
>
> How can you compare your irritation with mine?
Perhaps we should use range voting? Then we could express the strengths
of our respective irritations.
With Best Wishes for a good New Year and for some effective reform of
voting syst
> From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax> Sent: 30 December 2006 18:49
> At 01:05 PM 12/30/2006, James Gilmour wrote:
> > > Abd ul-Rahman Lomax> Sent: 30 December 2006 15:42
> > >
> > > Well, it is a bit irritating to me, and perhaps to some others,
that
> > >
e acromyn "AV" was used
for "Alternative Vote" many decades before the term "Approval Voting"
was first coined by Robert J. Weber in 1976 (Wikipedia).
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
ot;districts" for the two
elections, as in Australia, or have different candidate
"constituencies", as in Ireland, but a properly representative result is
what is required rather than some predefined political outcome that is
acceptable to you or to me.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
that the Hare quota when used in STV-PR
can produce perverse results, giving more representation to the smaller
group of voters.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
reference question.) We also see a similar
approach in the rules for dealing with multiple amendments to the same
motion.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Jonathan Lundell > Sent: 13 November 2006 16:27
> At 11:37 AM + 11/13/06, James Gilmour wrote:
> >Rather, STV-PR was devised to
> >ensure that each significant point of view within the electorate was
> >represented fairly (as expressed by the voters' responses
ll that it
could not change the order of the bottom candidates, some STV counting
rules provide for the transfer to be held in abeyance, but that doesn't
alter the general principle.
James Gilmour
> ---
> What you describe would indeed work, however
>
> Suppose the seco
lready has one winner. Simulation I made using both these
> systems (Juho and mine) showed an approbational rate almost
> double with SPPA instead of Juho's system.
>
> James Gilmour a écrit :
>
> > Stephane a écrit :
> > > It is possible to achieve PR with singl
> Stephane Rouillon> Sent: 16 October 2006 21:18
>
> Sorry for asking a question most people already know, but
> Is there any difference between STV and STV-PR systems or are
> they simply two names for the same model? If not what is the
> difference?
In a word, no. But as we all know, STV can
nguish this type
of election from a "single winner election" where there is only one post
to fill, like a city mayor or a state governor. Any other "definitions"
are unhelpful and just create confusion where none need exist.
So my statement stands:
> James Gilmour a écrit :
&
ignificant groups.
It could be all of these things.
Local activists should know best what will play best with local electors.
There is a lot of STV-PR campaign literature around the
world - don't hesitate to steal the ideas that are locally relevant.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
uot;Compactness" will often have
to be constrained by the physical geography around the
communities you have identified, especially mountain ranges and uncrossable
rivers.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Juho> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:12 PM
> Thanks for explaining what the situation in Scotland is. It
> really seems that Scots have been working against the
> Duverger's law for some time now.
>
> The MMP method of the Scottish Parliament certainly turns the
> Scottish party system in the
o models where STV like ordering is not
> >> used but the vote to James automatically goes to the smallest
> >> group that James belongs to, then to the next bigger group
> >> etc. may work better than current more rough "vote party
> >> only" or "
> Anthony Duff Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 3:22 AM
> --- James Gilmour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This all sounds very like the "above-the-line" voting that is used in
> > the Australian Federal Senate elections. It has perverted STV-PR very
> >
Jan Kok > Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 7:43 AM
> On 7/14/06, James Gilmour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Juho Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 10:22 PM
> > > The Scottish situation sounds to me like a multi-party system (that
> > > has emerged under differen
> Claes Wallin Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 11:25 PM
> > James Gilmour wrote:
> > If you want a bicameral legislature, why would you want one chamber
> > elected so that it is unrepresentative of those who voted for its
> > members? You can have both districts and
Juho Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 10:22 PM
> The Scottish situation sounds to me like a multi-party system
> (that has emerged under different rules) has gotten trapped
> in a two-party EM, and this kind of mixture is not a pretty
> match (looks actually quite terrible).
No, not at all. For UK
> > > > James Gilmour wrote:
> > > > Of course, you cannot have single-member districts and PR, ... ...
Juho wrote:
> > > I think there are methods that allow even this. It is
> > > possible for example to first count nation wide the votes of
> >
Juho Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 8:46 AM
> James Gilmour wrote:
> > Of course, you cannot have single-member districts and PR, ... ...
>
> I think there are methods that allow even this. It is
> possible for example to first count nation wide the votes of
> each party and
> > districted body and one PR/proxy/asset body.
>
> > On Jul 8, 2006, at 9:26 AM, James Gilmour wrote:
> > If you want a bicameral legislature, why would you want one
> > chamber elected so that it is unrepresentative of those who
> > voted for its members? You
op, travel to entertainment). The experience of the independent
Boundary Commissions here in Scotland has
indicated that this will be done more effectively by human beings with access
to a good database and GIS than by any
computer algorithms.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list
completely alien to the council and the electors of Denver
City. That seems to me to be a base on
which to start to build the case for STV-PR, either electing all 13 at large,
or in two multi-member districts.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
27;ll have links to
some 199,000 pages. Of course, not all of
those pages are equally useful or informative. And in reviewing all that
technical discussion and debate, don't loose
sight of the big questions: "What is the purpose of this Denver election?"
"How can we most quickly and effectively
bring about the desired change?"
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
us,
community-based, division into two electoral districts,
one returning 6 members and the other returning 7 members.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
ere an election spans several time zones is
not to start any counting until the last
polling station has closed and to ban the publication of all exit polls until
that time.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
ical
system ONLY if that is what the voters want.
The adoption of STV-PR could make an effective contribution to the resolution
of some of the political problems in
Israel that arise directly from its current voting system.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
STV-PR with SNTV) "But this does not make STV
perfect." I don't know who you think made that
claim - I most certainly didn't. There is NO perfect voting system - they
all have their defects, STV-PR included.
And the practical implementation of any voting system will always
the districts to an enormous size
On what evidence do you base this assertion?
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
> From: Jan Kok Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 12:33 AM
>
> MMP = mixed member proportional? Which I believe is used in
> New Zealand also.
Yes, MMP = Mixed Member Proportional (voting system), which we in the UK call
"AMS" = Additional Member System.
> What is the "trouble" that you have with
districts, restricts direct local representation to a wholly unreasonable
extent. With STV-PR you could have districts
electing, say, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 members, with size being related to the various
"natural communities" and to population
distribution (urban v. rural).
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
done,
but it tells us nothing useful about the dynamics of representation with
population change.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
I don't like any system that elects members on different bases. All the
members should be elected at once and on the
same basis. To get a fair balance between overall proportionality and local
representation, and to enhance local
accountability and reduce the central power of the party ma
ligent OCR and then counted by computer.
And we shall have all the paper ballots if anyone wants to demand a manual
count - and we have plenty of experience of
manual counting of both STV-PR and MMP.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
ors in those parties that use it.
For more info see:
http://www.cix.co.uk/~rosenstiel/stv/orderstv.htm
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
ty of
the votes cast AT THAT STAGE. If large numbers of voters away at home for the
later rounds of the exhaustive ballot,
that is their choice. They could have participated, but didn't. So in IRV,
the voters can mark many preferences or
very few - that's their choice. Of
nto account when seeking practical reform that can be implemented and
accepted. I am extremely sympathetic to the
advantages of Condorcet voting, but I do see the issue of the "weak Condorcet
winner" as being a major political problem
in its promotion and practical acceptance in the real wo
Eric Gorr Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 1:31 PM
> James Gilmour wrote:
> > Jan Kok Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 4:07 AM
> >> Yes, I agree that the election rules affect how people vote.
> >> But, unsophisticated IRV supporters are not aware that there
> >> can
8%, 47%, 5%), I suspect the CW would not be politically
acceptable to most electors. I can see merits
in both IRV and Condorcet, but this is a practical aspect of voting reform that
very few advocates of Condorcet methods
have attempted to address.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
on on
this question. We are content to leave the
decision on the resolution to those who do express an opinion." If the
abstainers are really opposed to the proposal in
the resolution they have a very simple remedy - vote "No".
This UK approach to "abstention" a
n the abstentions would count.
This higher threshold is sometimes found in the clause that governs amendment
of an organisation's constitution.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
mber of
significant views might be directly represented. If there is any parallel with
the AA example, it is a consensus within
the assembly, not a consensus among the voters. I appreciate one has to accept
the opposite conclusion in respect of
single-winner elections (city mayor, state governor, etc)
ying to develop an "all possible
combinations matrix".
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 2:40 AM
> > At 03:07 PM 12/2/2005, James Gilmour wrote:
> >On this point we shall have to disagree. Just because you express
> >your liking for A and your dislike for B more strongly than I do,
> >does not mean
"
>
> I have always advocated using a fixed scale such as 0-to-99.
I am glad that misunderstanding has been cleared up, because the wording of the
original posts gave a very different
impression.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
> rob brown Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 6:07 PM
> On 12/6/05, James Gilmour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This is the issue to which there has been no answer from
>> those who suggested it. There is no problem with fixed scale
>> range voting (because th
> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2005 4:19 AM
> To: election-methods@electorama.com
> Subject: Re: [EM] ignoring "strength of opinion"
>
> At 06:31 AM 12/3/2005, James Gilmour wrote:
> >So you think that just because I feel more strongly than you d
of social choice theory), which, once again, have
not been answered.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
e the social utility according
some criterion assessed on a suitable
scale, but it has no place in a democratic society.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 5:28 AM
> James Gilmour wrote:
> >What I had in mind was if I vote 1, 2, 3, 4 (1 = most preferred, the
> >one I want to see win) for candidates A, B, C, D,
> >and you vote 100, 99, 2, 1 (1 = most preferred) for the
ifferent
interpretation is put on the marks on the paper if you start from a social
choice perspective. But that's not where IRV
came from.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
> rob brown Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 1:38 AM
> On 11/30/05, James Gilmour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > rob brown Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 11:17 PM
> > >From a purely utilitarian point of view (i.e. "greatest
> > happiness"), it
f the preferences they express. Brian Meek, inventor of
Meek STV, described such a system for
normalising weighted preferences in multi-winner elections.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
ting systems with
multi-member districts. It is the single-member district that is on the way
out!
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
r ballots that were sorted and
counted manually. When STV-PR is introduced
for Local Authority elections in Scotland in 2007 it is planned that the paper
ballots will be scanned and processed
electronically. The legislation is being drafted at present, but there will be
a campaign for full dis
V-PR, but it is totally irrelevant for public elections because neither the
voters nor the candidates can exploit it
in public elections.
You are, however, correct to assert that the analysis of multi-winner elections
is of little help in devising the "best"
voting system for single-
hows a strong (statistically
significant) positive relationship between marginality and turnout. The
turnout is higher in the more marginal
constituencies and lower where there is a "safe seat".
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
ation. It would depend on the specific rules and context.
> Certainly the logic behind the Droop quota is good.
Asset Voting is Asset Voting. STV-PR is STV-PR.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 2:04 PM
>
> But all it proves is that sometimes it can happen
> that Droop quota leads to a more proportional result than Hare quota.
The fact that it happens at all shows that the use of the Hare quota is flawed.
> Although I haven't
ed SA 19 elected
RB 20 elected SB 19 elected
RC 24 elected SC 18
6456
The outcome with the Droop quota is that the supporters of the larger group
elect three candidates and the smaller
group elects two.
QED.
James Gilmour
election-methods mailing list - see http
83 matches
Mail list logo
