Taijitu
Forum Meta => Archive => General Discussion Archive => Topic started by: Gulliver on May 17, 2007, 02:33:34 AM
-
The situation is as follows: I have been assigned for school an advocacy project, wherein I must develop some policy to advocate and a strategy for advocating it. I have chosen to advocate my own little Condorcet twist of Single Transferable Vote, and when it comes to this perhaps the biggest obstacle to advocating is getting people to understand just what it is. So I have compiled what I believe to be a straightforward and understandable explanation. I can understand it, but then again I wrote it. So, out of curiosity, I run it by the lot of you now. Is the explanation I have compiled understandable and informative, or just confusing?
Single Transferable Vote (STV) is a preferential (rather than voting for a single candidate, voters rank candidates in order of preference) election method designed to achieve proportionality and to minimized wasted votes while preserving the ability to vote for individual candidates. It is used in Ireland to elect the Dáil Éireann, Australia to elect the Australian Senate, Malta to elect the Il-Kamra tar-Rappreżentanti, Scotland to elect the Scottish Parliament and the city of Cambridge here in Massachusetts to elect the City Council and School Board of the city of Cambridge Massachusetts.
STV as used in these places functions as a multi-member instant runoff vote (IRV), a preferential system used for single winner elections. However, my proposal is for a modified STV which functions as a multi-member Condorcet vote instead. Condorcet voting is also a preferential voting system used to decide single winner elections, and for reasons that will be explained later I consider it to be a better method than IRV.
This modified STV mirrors standard STV on all accounts except the manner in which candidates are eliminated when necessary. Rather than removing the candidate with the least number of votes the Condorcet loser, that candidate who is least preferred compared to all other candidates, is instead removed.
In IRV, candidates are ranked in order of preference, and then the votes for the most preferred candidate on each ballot is tallied. If no candidate holds a majority of votes, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated and their votes are then transferred to the next ranked candidate on the ballots cast for that candidate. This process is repeated recursively until a single candidate obtains a majority of votes.
IRV however does not satisfy the Condorcet criterion, that is to say that it does not necessarily elect the Condorcet winner, the single candidate who is genuinely overall preferred compared to every other candidate. Condorcet voting on the other hand by definition finds and selects as the election's winner the Condorcet winner. In Condorcet voting, candidates are also ranked. But instead of progressively eliminating candidates and transferring votes, each candidate is instead faced off against every other candidate in a series of pairwise contests, each candidate receiving a vote in each such contest for every ballot casted in which they are ranked higher than their opponent and vice versa. The candidate who wins all of these pairwise contests by a majority of votes in each is the Condorcet winner. The candidate meanwhile who looses all of these pairwise contests is the Condorcet looser.
With Condorcet voting, it is possible to have Condorcet paradox occur, in which there is no Condorcet winner and a cycle of preference is set up. To break such a cycle, the victory/loss which occurred by the smallest margin of votes is removed.
The actual method for conducting such a Condorcet STV election is as follows:
For the election of the General Court of Massachusetts, the state would be divided into 20 8 member districts for the House of Representatives and 5 8 member districts for the Senate, all districts for any given house of the General Court to represent an equal share of the population.
At elections, voters cast their ballots by ranking in order of preference as many of the candidates standing for election within a given district as they see fit by numbering their names on the ballot from 1 upwards. Alternatively, those voters who identify with or are more knowledgable of a party rather than individual candidates may instead vote for any of the parties listed on the ballot instead, in which case their ballot shall be considered to list whatever candidates in whatever order of preference given by that particular party's list. These lists would be created prior to an election for voters to review and displayed on the day of the election day itself at polling stations.
Once the polls have been closed, tallying begins. The votes for each candidate, which for the first round will be the total number of ballots in which each candidate is ranked first, are counted up and it is checked to see if any candidate has reached the necessary quota to be elected. The value of the quota is given by the formula (V/(S+1))+1, where V is the total number of unspoilt votes and S is the number of seats to be filled, rounding to the next whole number. The values of V and S will change as the votes are tallied and candidares are elected. All candidates, if any, who meet or exceed this quota are declared to be elected.
The surplus votes for those candidates declared elected are then transferred to the next candidate ranked on their respective ballots. Rather than randomly choosing which surplus votes to transer, which can change the result of a close election depending on which votes are transferred, all of the votes cast for the winning candidate are instead divided by a value X (accurate to 6 decimal places), where X is equal to the total number of votes the candidate received divided by the surplus so that the total sum of the votes now equals the surplus, and are then transferred to the next unelected or uneliminated candidate ranked on their respective ballots. The resulting sums of new votes are then rounded to the nearest whole number.
Also, in the event that any number of candidates reach quota the value of V for determining the quota is reduced by the number of candidates elected time the current quota and S is reduced by the number of candidates elected.
If no candidate reaches quota, the Condorcet loser among the remaining candidates is then eliminated, and their votes then transferred to the next uneliminated or unelected candidate ranked on their respective ballots.
This process is repeated recursively until all of the seats within the district have been filled.
Should a vacancy open, the countback method can be used to find a replacement. What this entitles is taking the ballots from the most recent election and eliminating the legislator who previously occupied the seat, transferring their votes appropriately, and then finding the candidate who could have won otherwise. If no candidate to fill the seat can be found using a countback, a by-election using a standard Condorcet vote, as the method of STV described above would elect the same winner as a Condorcet vote were it used for a single seat, can be used.
-
I don't know. It is too large and I did not read it. First piece of constructive criticism.
-
Understandable, yet requires an example so that people can grasp the practical applications and to reduce misunderstandings.
-
^ Agreed. I found it suitably understandable and informative, though a couple stylistic changes might be suggested (i.e. repetitive language, spelling mistakes).
-
I was planning on simply stating "oh noes, the typoes" but decided that it's not too constructive.
-
Some of it is easily understandable, but I did have to re-read some parts a couple of times, and some of it remains unclear. A few tweaks would remedy most of that, mainly by adding some commas or re-arranging a bit of the text.
Single Transferable Vote (STV) is a preferential (rather than voting for a single candidate, voters rank candidates in order of preference) election method designed to achieve proportionality and to minimized wasted votes while preserving the ability to vote for individual candidates.
This first sentence is just a bit awkward to read - the included statement in parenthesis is important, but serves as a mental interruption. You might simply re-arrange it something like this:
Single Transferable Vote (STV) is a preferential voting system wherein voters rank candidates in order of preference. rather than voting for a single candidate. This election method is designed to ascertain proportionality and to minimize wasted votes, while preserving the ability to vote for individual candidates.
This modified STV mirrors standard STV on all accounts except the manner in which candidates are eliminated when necessary. Rather than removing the candidate with the least number of votes the Condorcet loser, that candidate who is least preferred compared to all other candidates, is instead removed.
This is one that I had to re-read twice to understand it well. It only needs a slight tweaking for better readability, such as:
Rather than removing the candidate with the least number of votes, in the Condorcet version, the candidate who is least preferred compared to all other candidates is instead removed.
In IRV, candidates are ranked in order of preference, and then the votes for the most preferred candidate on each ballot is tallied. If no candidate holds a majority of votes, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated and their votes are then transferred to the next ranked candidate on the ballots cast for that candidate. This process is repeated recursively until a single candidate obtains a majority of votes.
This part confused me. To someone like myself who is not familiar with IRV, it sounds as though when a candidate is removed, all votes that had been cast for him are then transfered to some other candidate, but I'm unclear on "next ranked candidate on the ballots cast for that candidate". Who are they being transfered to?
Condorcet voting on the other hand by definition finds and selects as the election's winner the Condorcet winner.
This sentence is awkward as well. Are you saying that the winner of Condorcet voting is the election's winner? That sounds redundant, unless it was meant to make some other point.
IRV however does not satisfy the Condorcet criterion, that is to say that it does not necessarily elect the Condorcet winner, the single candidate who is genuinely overall preferred compared to every other candidate. Condorcet voting on the other hand by definition finds and selects as the election's winner the Condorcet winner. In Condorcet voting, candidates are also ranked. But instead of progressively eliminating candidates and transferring votes, each candidate is instead faced off against every other candidate in a series of pairwise contests, each candidate receiving a vote in each such contest for every ballot casted in which they are ranked higher than their opponent and vice versa. The candidate who wins all of these pairwise contests by a majority of votes in each is the Condorcet winner. The candidate meanwhile who looses all of these pairwise contests is the Condorcet looser.
This is the idea I get from the above, but I'm not certain that it's correct. It is similar to a point system. Each candidate is compared to each of the other candidates in pairs, and the one who has received a higher preferential rating in each pair gets one point. Those points are then compared to determine the candidate to be removed by the lowest number of points received. Your use of the term 'vote' where I used the word 'point' is what makes me unsure. It could be that this means instead that an additional vote is added the base votes for each candidate for each pairing that he or she wins.
The candidate meanwhile who looses all of these pairwise contests is the Condorcet looser.
I don't know how picky your teacher is, but if he or she demands absolute precision, then:
The candidate, meanwhile, who loses the highest amount of these pairwise contests is the Condorcet loser.
Because technically that statement as its written implies that there is only a Condorcet loser if one candidate has lost ALL of the pairings, as opposed to lost more of them than the other candidates.
That's as far as time allows me to read through this paper. I apologize if that's far too indepth a critique for what you wanted. I tend to put on my 'editor hat' when I'm doing this sort of thing.
-
Okay, here's my view; hope it helps! Is this for a high school class, or a university class? I understood it, and I found it to be quite well versed, however I'm an Honours student in Political Science: if I didn't understand it, I'd be in trouble. However, if you wrote it for as the subject says a "layman" to understand it, you might be in trouble.
Here's the thing: for the most part, flowering things only works in gardens. I have a problem where I try to use too... "sophisticated" a vocabulary, and I try to butter up my writing to get more of my own opinion across, and to apply more description. What I've learned, and what I've been taught for years now, is to write something that can be understood by anybody. You know what it means, and the professor knows what it means, yet concise and easily understood arguments are often the most effective. What I would try to do, and it's only a suggestion, maybe it's not what is being asked... :) is to make things as simple as possible, and where you need to use a technical term, explain it. For example,
Single Transferable Vote (STV) is a preferential voting system wherein voters rank candidates in order of preference. rather than voting for a single candidate. This election method is designed to ascertain proportionality and to minimize wasted votes, while preserving the ability to vote for individual candidates.
There's probably a simpler way to explain STV. I might not know what "proportionality" means in political terms. Later on, you mention "Concordet" voting as well. While I haven't finished my degree yet, and I'm sure it'll come up later, I for one have no clue what that is. :P And I didn't really get a solid gist of it early in the piece.
One way to make things simple: examples! STV could be explained very easily if you used a hypothetical Candidate A, Candidate B, and Candidate C. Just giving you something to think about! :)
-
Heh, I am out touch with the vernacular :P
And yes, I've considered examples. I just ponder how effective they can be with just type alone. Perhaps I should go and dredge up a few pictures, then I might have something...
-
vernacular
? :D :D :D
It would need a bit of rounding it around the edges, but the job is admirable, Prag.
-
I got it...you could do with some diagrams and charts....
-
seconded
-
Honestly, I dislike the idea. It appears to be a way of trying to fix something that isn't broken. If this were in place in 2000 Gore may have won the election, which would probably make many of you happy. But, if it were in place in 1992, H.W. Bush would have won the election, which would probably disappoint many of you.
In reality, we have a nation full of people that are pretty incompetent. People can't manage to properly punch holes in a butterfly ballot, there is no way they could do something this complex properly.
-
In reality, we have a nation full of people that are pretty incompetent. People can't manage to properly punch holes in a butterfly ballot, there is no way they could do something this complex properly.
Which would be why companies feel the need to equip hair dryers with danger tags stating "Do not immerse in water", rubbing alcohol with "Do not take internally", and a woman has sued McDonald's because she removed the lid from her take-out coffee in a moving vehicle and scalded her lap. The powers of stupidity never cease to amaze me.
-
Your sueing culture might also have something to do with people quitting to think for themselves, why think of what you do when you can blame any accidents on someone else and get money for it?
-
Honestly, I dislike the idea. It appears to be a way of trying to fix something that isn't broken. If this were in place in 2000 Gore may have won the election, which would probably make many of you happy. But, if it were in place in 1992, H.W. Bush would have won the election, which would probably disappoint many of you.
You wouldn't use STV to elect the president, as that is inherently a single member office.
And there is very much something broken. Consider this:
Last election here in Massachusetts for the federal House of Representatives roughly 80% voted Democratic, roughly 20% Republican. We have 10 seats, so there are certainly enough to provide for some proportionality. But because we use FPTP, the resulting legislature elected for this state is not 80% Democratic, 20% Republican, but 100% Democratic. In short, 1/5 of the population at least is unrepresented in the legislature, and that is simply unacceptable. Everyone is entitled to be represented the policy making process, and while perfect representation is impossible something as egregious as a 20% deviation from proportionality is simply absurd.
This has nothing to do with voter competence and intellect, because it doesn't matter how smart the voters are if the system they use is a poor electoral system. Indeed, this system relies on the assumption that voters are at the very least not absolutely stupid and can grasp the concept of ranking candidates.
-
Last election here in Massachusetts for the federal House of Representatives roughly 80% voted Democratic, roughly 20% Republican. We have 10 seats, so there are certainly enough to provide for some proportionality. But because we use FPTP, the resulting legislature elected for this state is not 80% Democratic, 20% Republican, but 100% Democratic. In short, 1/5 of the population at least is unrepresented in the legislature, and that is simply unacceptable. Everyone is entitled to be represented the policy making process, and while perfect representation is impossible something as egregious as a 20% deviation from proportionality is simply absurd.
This is exactly why I designed my RP nation's electoral system the way I did. I actually started out with it loosely based on France's legislature (which, of course, is set up for proportional representation), then went out on a limb to make it unique.
-
Your sueing culture might also have something to do with people quitting to think for themselves, why think of what you do when you can blame any accidents on someone else and get money for it?
I think it encourages the "get rich quick" mindset. People figure from what they hear that everybody's doing it, so why shouldn't they get a slice of the pie? These corporations are so rich they'll never miss it, right? Personally, I'd like to see every lawyer fined for bringing frivolous lawsuits to court. It's their business to know what's frivolous and what isn't, even if their potential clients don't.
-
Another cultural quality leading to the rash of frivolous lawsuits is the general attitude of being entitled. Here in the US people seem to think they are "owed" happiness and a perfect life, and if they don't get it someone else is always to blame. They seek monetary compensation for the stupidest situations imaginable because they don't want to fault themselves for misusing a product or even because they think any time they can get money out of some company it's only because they "should" have it.
I've actually heard people say they would sue anyone they could potentially find a reason to gain a settlement from simply because they can, that it is not immoral to get money this way because they deserve it.
-
I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. I don't like multi-member districts at all. You make a valid point about people being under represented in a state like yours. But, that is a part of our system- and honestly I don't think it is worth taking a risk to fix something that isn't broken. In your state the Republican Party has lost the battle of ideas. If they want representation in Congress they need to do a better job of getting their message out and finding candidates that are electable. The parliamentary systems of our world have multi-member districts but also multi-party systems that make it nearly impossible for some parties to ever gain office if not for their system. Unless we want the Libertarians, Green Party, Constitutional Party, and others to have more influence I don't see a need.
-
I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. I don't like multi-member districts at all. You make a valid point about people being under represented in a state like yours. But, that is a part of our system- and honestly I don't think it is worth taking a risk to fix something that isn't broken. In your state the Republican Party has lost the battle of ideas. If they want representation in Congress they need to do a better job of getting their message out and finding candidates that are electable. The parliamentary systems of our world have multi-member districts but also multi-party systems that make it nearly impossible for some parties to ever gain office if not for their system. Unless we want the Libertarians, Green Party, Constitutional Party, and others to have more influence I don't see a need.
Frankly, I think those "third parties" should have some influence in government. They represent a lot more of the population than it would seem based on the percentage of votes they garner in an actual election. Many of those who vote for one of the main two parties only do so because third parties almost never win anything and they don't want to "throw their vote away". This is a HUGE sign that the system is, in fact, broken. When people don't feel truly free to vote for those they wish to represent them in government, we have a problem.
Even if 100% of those who support a third party vote to reflect that, which will never happen the way we run things now, they will not get any representation. If a party receives 20% of the votes, they should get 20% of the representation. Period. That makes sure people feel free to vote as their hearts choose, and not as they think will "avert the greater of two evils" because they know a vote for a third party won't be wasted. Leaving such a huge portion of the people with no representation sounds an awful lot like what we were trying to get out of in the Revolutionary War in the first place... Can you imagine what this country would be like if we were no longer ruled by tyranny of the majority? Right now 51% of the country has the power to control practically all of the executive and legislative decisions.
-
Yes, the current electoral system is absolutely and completely broken. The legislatures being elected are not representative of the population. Basically every single district is now gerrymandered, something made possible by the fact that they are single member winner-take all affairs without proportionality, making elections almost absolutely pointless as the results are in most places practically predetermined. In fact, it has reached a point where here at least the opposition doesn't even bother to put up a fight the system is so complete rigged, which is of course a serious problem because functioning democracy relies on competition. We have ridiculously high rates of voter apathy as most voters are smart enough to realize that under the current system their votes are usually completely wasted. We have an unresponsive Congress that now does what the people want by some polls only 40% of the time. We are stuck with only two real choices, constantly forced to pick between only two options. The only thing that's not broken is that we have some kind of elections, and that's a pretty low standard to aim for.
And actually, France's legislature is not set up for proportional representation, as it uses single member districts elected by runoff voting. Still, even that is an improvement on the American system as it makes sure the winner actually has a majority and allows for more than two parties.