2012/2/5 David L Wetzell wetze...@gmail.com
I wanted to add that if STV (3-5 seats) with Droop Quota were used
consistently across the US that there'd be 50 states forming the
super-districts and so if there were biases due to gerrymandering some of
them would cancel out...
Also, even
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 3:57 AM, David L Wetzell wetze...@gmail.com wrote:
Moreover, if the bicameral state legislatures were selected by both LR Hare
3-seats and a single-winner rule (insert your favorite here), then it'd make
it so that what helped with gerrymandering in one branch would hurt
In fact, it might be a good thing to let the pretty darn proportionally
elected state house of reps elect our US senators again!!! Statewide
campaigns are expensive and often driven by the manipulative mainstream
media. And if the state reps got to elect our US senators every 2 years
then
--
From: David L Wetzell wetze...@gmail.com
To: Jameson Quinn jameson.qu...@gmail.com
Cc: election-methods@lists.electorama.com, Bryan Mills
bmi...@alumni.cmu.edu
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 07:47:37 -0600
Subject: Re: [EM] STV+AV
In fact, it might be a good thing to let the pretty darn
2012/2/6 David L Wetzell wetze...@gmail.com
In fact, it might be a good thing to let the pretty darn proportionally
elected state house of reps elect our US senators again!!! Statewide
campaigns are expensive and often driven by the manipulative mainstream
media. And if the state reps
Agreed, but no chance this will happen.
What if electoral analysts put more of their power into showing others
why such a change would be for the greater good, rather than dickering over
which single-winner election rule is the best???
Perhaps you should apply this audacious hope
Rationality in the face of the complexity of reality entails having priors
and valuing empiricism(based on more than a case-study) over theory.
There's not evidence to make me reject my prior that in the short-run in
the US that the variance in the quality of alternatives to FPTP(apart from
top 2
They don't always change their priors *much*. It depends on the evidence...
And I do rationalize. I just don't want to rationalize the fact that the
difficulties this list-serve has in agreeing on the best single-winner
election rule is consistent with the possibility that there wouldn't be
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Bryan Mills bmi...@alumni.cmu.edu wrote:
Now, despite a 50/50 natural split, the rural party has a 60% supermajority.
And, of course, if you draw the district lines differently you can do the
same thing for the urban party.
This was attempted in Ireland, look
I wanted to add that if STV (3-5 seats) with Droop Quota were used
consistently across the US that there'd be 50 states forming the
super-districts and so if there were biases due to gerrymandering some of
them would cancel out...
Also, even though this system is not terribly 3rd party friendly,
From: Bryan Mills bmi...@alumni.cmu.edu
To: David L Wetzell wetze...@gmail.com
If there are 3-5 seats STV then the number of candidates won't
proliferate
too much and there'd be 5-7 places to vote. This would keep things
reasonable.
To get reasonable proportionality with only
2012/2/4 Bryan Mills bmi...@alumni.cmu.edu
From: Bryan Mills bmi...@alumni.cmu.edu
To: David L Wetzell wetze...@gmail.com
If there are 3-5 seats STV then the number of candidates won't
proliferate
too much and there'd be 5-7 places to vote. This would keep things
reasonable.
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Jameson Quinn jameson.qu...@gmail.comwrote:
2012/2/4 Bryan Mills bmi...@alumni.cmu.edu
From: Bryan Mills bmi...@alumni.cmu.edu
To: David L Wetzell wetze...@gmail.com
If there are 3-5 seats STV then the number of candidates won't
proliferate
too much
They do maintain the constituent-legislator relationship, *for the
subset of voters who voted in favor of the legislator*. For the remaining
Droop quota of un- or under-represented constituents the nonexistence of
the constituent-legislator relationship is also maintained.
Here's my
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 5:26 AM, Ken Karla kbear...@isd.net wrote:
[Ken B.] That is incorrect; I know of no such law. Each state can specify
its own method of electing its federal representatives.
Isn't there a Federal law which states single seat districts? It
isn't constitutionally
One possible way of combining AV + STV is to allow equal ranks. This
method becomes a method that is very similar to approval in the single
winner case.
When determining if a candidate is elected, all candidates at the rank
share the remaining vote strength, but when determining if a candidate
Yes, this works. One downside is that, unlike STV, a hand count becomes
quite untractable.
Jameson
2012/2/2 Raph Frank raph...@gmail.com
One possible way of combining AV + STV is to allow equal ranks. This
method becomes a method that is very similar to approval in the single
winner case.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Bryan Mills bmi...@alumni.cmu.edu
To: David L Wetzell wetze...@gmail.com
dlw: If the number of possible rankings is the number of seats + 2 then
it's not too bad. And nobody would be forced to rank umpteen
candidates,
so the low-info
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Jameson Quinn jameson.qu...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, this works. One downside is that, unlike STV, a hand count becomes
quite untractable.
I think the random selection method for doing surplus transfers may
still work somewhat.
Approval voting is inherently harder
On 02/02/2012 07:24 AM, Bryan Mills wrote:
Single-winner is required by 2 USC Sec. 2c:
[...] there shall be established by law a number of
districts equal to the number of Representatives to which such
State is so entitled, and Representatives shall be elected only
from
Why STV? The original poster wanted elected representatives to have
votes
proportional to their electoral support yes? There's no need for
fractional
transfers from elected candidates then.
IRV is a form of STV, but it's not my favorite. Some of the other STV
methods (e.g.
On 2/1/2012 10:54 PM, Bryan Mills wrote:
given that US law requires single-winner FPTP
elections for federal representation and the major parties (who
control the legislature and benefit greatly from FPTP) have no
incentive to change that law.
= = = = =
[Ken
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 23:26:47 -0600
From: Ken Karla kbear...@isd.net
To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com
Subject: Re: [EM] STV+AV
Message-ID: 4f2a1e97.8080...@isd.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.electorama.com
Why STV? The original poster wanted elected representatives to have votes
proportional to their electoral support yes? There's no need for fractional
transfers from elected candidates then.
IRV is a form of STV, but it's not my favorite. Some of the other STV
methods (e.g. Schulze-STV and
On 1/31/12 3:23 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
STV requires much more work on the part of the voter - ranking all
the way down to a candidate likely to be elected, instead of just
one. That probably means a much larger ballot and/or an arbitrary
cutoff between ballot-candidates and
Why STV? The original poster wanted elected representatives to have votes
proportional to their electoral support yes? There's no need for
fractional
transfers from elected candidates then.
IRV is a form of STV, but it's not my favorite. Some of the other STV
methods (e.g.
26 matches
Mail list logo
