In order to be a bit more concrete
and to complement my other mails I
draft here one approach to combining
STV like and shorter open list/tree
style ballots. The point is to see
what could be done when the number
of candidates grows large in STV
(and to try to take in what is good
in trees).
Some systems use explicit thresholds
that cut out the smallest parties.
Many systems use districts. Use of
districts also tends to cut out the
smallest parties.
Districts also tend to favour local
groups. A pro district X group with
10% nation wide support might easily
get seats (probably in
--- On Sun, 3/5/09, Raph Frank raph...@gmail.com wrote:
I think a candidate list system is better though as it
allows more
general inheritance ordering. Ofc, it is always going
to be a
tradeoff between precision and complexity (both for the
count and for
the voter).
Closed party list
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:08 AM, Juho Laatu juho4...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Candidates have a default tree-like
order of inheritance. Vote C121 will
be counted as a vote to candidate
C121, group G12 and party P1. This
vote has the same meaning as vote
C121G12P1ANYONE.
One slight issue here is
--- On Tue, 5/5/09, Raph Frank raph...@gmail.com wrote:
My preference is to use a different method of counting for
election
and elimination.
Election: Vote is shared between all candidates at current
rank
Elimination: Vote is given to each candidate at current
rank at full strength
Why
article wrote:
But new ideas for reducing energy waste or increasing the efficiency of
various systems and devices are less closely linked to profit margins of
large corporations.
The real issue here is that people don't actually care about those things.
Companies target their RD on stuff
I have trouble finding value in the specific label non-approved.
All that I do not rank share being liked less than any others - as do
those I assign lower ranks than others I indicate liking better.
DWK
On May 5, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Raph Frank wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Dermot
--- On Tue, 5/5/09, Raph Frank raph...@gmail.com wrote:
Btw, one way that this approach might
somewhat simplify things is that the
votes could be shorter than in STV.
(There might be such shortening needs
also to keep the votes unidentifiable
(to avoid vote buying and coercion).
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:25 PM, Juho Laatu juho4...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
The vote could be e.g. C999C888C111.
Pairs of candidates like C999 and C888
might be rare enough to allow some vote
buyer to mark numerous ballots.
Ofc, a law banning vote buying might be enough in 99% of cases anyway.
Dermot Cochran wrote:
On 30 Apr 2009, at 17:24, Raph Frank wrote:
Another option would be to have the voter submit a ranked ballot and
also have an approval threshold candidate. All candidates ranked
higher than that psuedo-candidate would be considered approved.
However, that gives voters
Raph Frank wrote:
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Juho Laatu juho4...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Why only fraction of the vote in the
election case? Doesn't a vote to a
party mean that any candidate of the
party may use it at full strength?
Naturally once someone uses it it is
not available to
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 1:24 AM, Dan Bishop danbisho...@gmail.com wrote:
The one thing you haven't mentioned is surpluses. The
symmetric-completion-compatible way of dealing with them is weight the
ballot by the average of the retention fraction for the top-ranked
candidates. For example,
12 matches
Mail list logo
