-winner Approval based methods (e.g. http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_approval_voting).
Juho
On Apr 24, 2007, at 1:50 , Gervase Lam wrote:
>> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:28:56 -0400
>> From: Howard Swerdfeger
>> Subject: Re: [EM] PR in student government
>
>> Vot
> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 14:28:56 -0400
> From: Howard Swerdfeger
> Subject: Re: [EM] PR in student government
> Voting Instructions:
> 1. You only have ONE vote.
> 2. Place an X in the box NEXT to your candidate of choice.
> 3. Your vote counts both for your candidate and y
At 01:14 PM 4/17/2007, James Gilmour wrote:
>You may be interested to know that in our elections on 3 May, electors
>will complete conventional ballot papers (real paper) with an old
>fashioned stubby pencil (chained to the polling booth) or vote by post.
>The ballot papers for the Local Government
On Apr 17, 2007, at 21:28 , Howard Swerdfeger wrote:
Again, I recommend a Regional Open List System.
It would be my second choice (behind STV) in therms of results
given the
requirements you mentioned.
But it would be my first choice if one was to give more weight to
simplicity of counting an
> Any suggestions? I'm currently pushing the proportional aspect of the
> system, as that seems to be the primary thing that sets it apart from the
> status quo. It's also the reason I see it as a big issue - elections have
> been rather uncompetitive thanks for to the tendency for the establish
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
On Apr 17, 2007, at 9:54 AM, James Gilmour wrote:
>> From: Howard Swerdfeger > Sent: 17 April 2007 17:37
>>
>> Tactical voting is easy in STV.
>>
>> Step 1 : Determine what your preferred ranking is.
>> Step 2 : Determine who is sure to lose the election
>> Step 3 : Rank all candidates you are sur
> From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax > Sent: 17 April 2007 17:15
> I didn't claim that this information was "what STV-PR is all about."
> It is primarily a method for creating a proportional representation
> assembly. The information I'm talking about is not directly relevant
> to that goal. But, I asser
> From: Howard Swerdfeger > Sent: 17 April 2007 17:37
>
> Tactical voting is easy in STV.
>
> Step 1 : Determine what your preferred ranking is.
> Step 2 : Determine who is sure to lose the election
> Step 3 : Rank all candidates you are sure will loose above
> the rest of your "real" list
> Th
> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax> Sent: 17 April 2007 15:50
Just two points to which I wish to respond.
> The ballots could also be counted sequentially, as needed. I dislike
> this, because I think every vote should be counted, even if
> supposedly "moot." If I went to the trouble to cast it, it shouldn'
> [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. They are not very easy to explain.
> >
> > Fract
As it happens, I've never paid attention to the details of how PR-STV
works. So, in a sense, my mind is free of distraction on the point,
and what I come up with *may* represent an intuitive approach of some
value. If my intuition is sound, it may also match what has come to
be seen as a more m
At 11:20 AM 4/17/2007, James Gilmour wrote:
> > Abd ul-Rahman Lomax> Sent: 17 April 2007 15:50
> > The ballots could also be counted sequentially, as needed. I dislike
> > this, because I think every vote should be counted, even if
> > supposedly "moot." If I went to the trouble to cast it, it shou
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. They are not very easy to explain.
>
> Fractional transfers are absolutely essential for STV-PR (unl
--- Tim Hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As a result, I'm looking at proportional representation systems -
> and possibly introducing one as a ballot initiative for next year.
> However, I have experienced great trouble in finding a system that
> people like. Single Transferable Vote seems ideal
Tim Hull> Sent: 16 April 2007 17:30
> As a result, I'm looking at proportional representation
> systems - and possibly introducing one as a ballot initiative
> for next year. However, I have experienced great trouble in
> finding a system that people like. Single Transferable Vote
> seems idea
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: 16 April 2007 20:08
> It might be easier to explain. The real problem with PR-STV is the
> fractional transfers. They are not very easy to explain.
Fractional transfers are absolutely essential for STV-PR (unless you
accept a small element of chance). Without the corr
Bob Richard electorama at robertjrichard.com wrote:
>
> The (alleged) complexity of STV is entirely a matter of the counting
> process; the task for the voter is actually very simple. Having said
> that, the conventional ways of explaining the count invariably lose
> audiences, and we need t
Monday, April 16, 2007 10:49 AM
To: election-methods@electorama.com
Subject: Re: [EM] PR in student government...
It's not a strict Borda count (ranking all candidates) per se - it's a
point system where your first place vote is worth n votes, second n-1,
and so on, n being the number of o
> Approval and range wouldn't work any better than our existing system, as
> they aren't proportional (i.e. one slate can sweep seats easily). It does
> seem like STV is best - however, it does seem harder to explain than the
> existing system. How would MMP be done, anyway - especially with unev
It's not a strict Borda count (ranking all candidates) per se - it's a point
system where your first place vote is worth n votes, second n-1, and so on,
n being the number of open seats. What is being elected are representative
seats for student government divided proportionally by school/college
Tim Hull wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I e-mailed this list a while back about election methods in student
> government. I'm at the University of Michigan, and we use a variant of the
> Borda count for our elections where you get as many votes as open seats.
> Slates of candidates typically contest election
m Hull
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 9:30 AM
To: election-methods@electorama.com
Subject: [EM] PR in student government...
Hi,
I e-mailed this list a while back about election methods in student
government. I'm at the University of Michigan, and we use a variant of
the Borda count for our elect
On Apr 16, 2007, at 9:56 AM, Bob Richard wrote:
> The (alleged) complexity of STV is entirely a matter of the counting
> process; the task for the voter is actually very simple. Having said
> that, the conventional ways of explaining the count invariably lose
> audiences, and we need to learn how
ssage-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Tim Hull
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 9:30 AM
To: election-methods@electorama.com
Subject: [EM] PR in student government...
Hi,
I e-mailed this list a while back about election methods in student
government. I'm at the Uni
Hi,
I e-mailed this list a while back about election methods in student
government. I'm at the University of Michigan, and we use a variant of the
Borda count for our elections where you get as many votes as open seats.
Slates of candidates typically contest elections as "parties", and most
disc
26 matches
Mail list logo
