ndependent
(defeating one of the major establishment party candidates) had it not been
for the point weightings.
On 4/25/07, Gervase Lam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:37:04 -0400
> From: "Tim Hull"
> Subject: [EM] Cumulative Voting with Elimination -
(UK)/NDP (Canada) type parties, and even
smaller parties would gain a seat hear and there...
On 4/25/07, Howard Swerdfeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris Benham wrote:
>
>
> Howard Swerdfeger wrote:
>
>> Tim Hull wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Condorcet, on the ot
AIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tim,
--- Tim Hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit:
> On this topic, does anyone know of a modified,
> kind-of-Condorcet-but-not-quite method which preserves later-no-harm?
> This may be interesting as a starting point...
MinMax (pairwise opposition) satisfies LNH
Regarding ballot design - our current system already does this quite well
- everything is randomized in the online ballot (though parties are grouped
together) and there is an area for additional information. Optional ballot
completion would also definitely be used...
election-methods mail
s and Republicans constitute
some 97% of the overall vote and their numbers are already roughly
proportional).
Tim
On 4/25/07, Chris Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Howard Swerdfeger wrote:
Tim Hull wrote:
Condorcet, on the other hand, does not suffer
from the center squeeze.
MMP still enforces proportionality based on parties - as opposed to STV's
non-party based method.
That is somewhat undesirable, and does make the legislature more party
rather than individual-based.
Also, it creates situations such as the rule I heard they use in New Zealand
whereby if you switch
That's the answer to what would likely happen if Range voting were
implemented anywhere of significance - cards like those used in Australia
would appear telling voters how to vote. Granted, it would probably happen
under any preferential system, but in range it is almost guaranteed that
bullet v
ith Labour,
the Conservatives, and the Official Monster Raving Loony Party (assume no
Liberal Democrat ran)... Would an OMRLP MP really be a quality result? It
may be entertaining, though...
On 4/24/07, Juho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Apr 25, 2007, at 0:40 , Tim Hull wrote:
The par
e status quo - as of now we have dominance by
*1* major party.
On 4/24/07, Juho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Apr 24, 2007, at 6:26 , Tim Hull wrote:
> In this case, the only *tested* method which is fully candidate
> based (i.e. no party lists, open or closed) - and does not use
&
On the subject of IRV and STV - this is actually quite relevant to my
situation.
As it stands, I'm primarily looking for a method of PR to allow the
multi-seat elections on my student government -
which constitute 75% of the representatives and probably 95% of the actual
voter turnout (the single
Regarding the constituencies, the 19-seat one is elected 10 seats one
semester, 9 seats the other. The other multi-seat constituencies are
similarly divided. I would say that none of these can be combined for a
simple reason - they do represent a clear group (each individual
school/college withi
and
thus wins. Under IRV, the Democrat would have won. The only system other
than IRV that I know of that doesn't suffer this issue is Range/Approval...
On 4/22/07, Juho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Apr 22, 2007, at 6:44 , Tim Hull wrote:
> Anyway, as this does require a 2/
Hi,
I've appreciated all the feedback I've received on voting systems as they
pertain to student government.
Anyway, I'll be working on drafting an official resolution for a new system
over the summer, with the intent on
proposing something in the Fall for a student vote in the Fall elections
(th
In my research of voting systems, PR, etc, I've been trying to come up with
the most simple candidate-based PR system that I can possibly devise that
uses votes for candidates and no other factors to determine the winners (i.e.
open list and asset voting don't count for this purpose). I know simpl
Well, as far as I'm thinking, standard STV is already too complicated to
explain. Introducing Meek/Warren would only make it more likely to fail
(this has to be voted on by the student government and the student body) due
to the added complexity of explaining them. I don't even want to think of
eem like STV is best - however, it does seem harder to explain than the
existing system. How would MMP be done, anyway - especially with uneven
constituencies?
Tim
On 4/16/07, Howard Swerdfeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tim Hull wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I e-mailed this list a while bac
ortional (MMP). But
that doesn't sound like your situation.
Bob Richard
Publications Director
Californians for Electoral Reform
http://www.cfer.org
P.O. Box 235
Kentfield, CA 94914-0235
(415) 256-9393
-Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Ti
ghts on this system? Is it better/worse than
SPAV/PAV? Is there any other candidate-based PR systems out there -
especially ones simpler than STV?
Tim Hull
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
ive seat as the only independent candidate to defeat the dominant
party slate, and am planning to introduce something. I just need to be able
to convince others...
Tim Hull
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
es LNH (not counting party lists, asset voting,
and other nontraditional methods)
Tim
On 12/22/06, Kevin Venzke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tim,
--- Tim Hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit:
> At this point, I'd say the choice is between IRV/STV and some form of
> range/a
The method sounds interesting and all... but I think we're going to end up
doing something a little more *traditional* in this regard. Asset voting et
al is off the table - though it does sound like an interesting idea.
At this point, I'd say the choice is between IRV/STV and some form of
range/
"delegable proxy"?
On 12/21/06, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 03:48 PM 12/20/2006, Tim Hull wrote:
>Does anyone have any suggestions? What are the flaws with my
>proposed system? Is there something that would potentially be
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
l national election - if the voting
system fails LNH. However, monotonicity is also a concern...
On 12/21/06, Kevin Venzke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
--- Tim Hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit:
> Also, what preferential methods exist that satisfy "later no harm"? I
I know about open party list - though it offers more control, it still
offers less than candidate-based methods -
and would be too rigid. The same goes for asset voting - possibly even more
so.
A computer count is not a problem - all voting is already done on computer
anyway. Thus, I definitely
ing that would potentially be better while not
becoming too complex?
Tim Hull
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
25 matches
Mail list logo
