I think PAL has about zero chance of going anywhere in the USA, so I can't devote a lot of time to thinking about it's theoretical aspects.I think SODA might be worth considering here, it's just that it's name is so bad that I can never remember what it actually entails.
Yet you talk about RRV and the like. Why do you think those are more worth discussing than PAL?
On Tuesday, March 11, 2014 10:16:53 AM UTC-7, Jameson Quinn wrote:Yet you talk about RRV and the like. Why do you think those are more worth discussing than PAL?RRV's complexity is purely in the tabulation. Voters know that they just score the candidates
and get n winners.
Your description of PAL includes some notion of "local" candidates
"having a representative from each party for each district" and other fundamental changes whose purpose even I can grasp.Spending some significant time in real world political activism (going to local political club meetings, pitching ideas to your elected officials) will really benefit you.
Tell me again, what is PAL?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Center for Election Science" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to electionscien...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Tell me again, what is PAL?
For what it's worth, I think SODA is too complicated to be practical.
However, I don't think that argument works against PAL representation. There is no true PR system which the average voter would understand. STV, RRV, open list... all of these involve technical details and quota calculations which most voters will tune out on.
So I think that we can't hold out for perfect simplicity if we want PR.
On Friday, March 28, 2014 8:43:34 AM UTC-7, Jameson Quinn wrote:However, I don't think that argument works against PAL representation. There is no true PR system which the average voter would understand. STV, RRV, open list... all of these involve technical details and quota calculations which most voters will tune out on.There are different kinds of complexity. A few types that stand out are:
- tabulation effort required by administrators.
- clarity of the algorithm
- complexity of determining how one "should" vote
- complexity of understanding the overall nature of the voting process.
E.g. say you use the strategy-free Score Voting system where two probability distributions are selected, then the winner is picked by implementing the distribution with a higher "expected total score". Because it's free of strategy, it's trivial for a voter to decide how to fill out a ballot. Just give sincere scores. But the algorithm is very complex to understand. The game theoretical underpinnings will seem abstract to most voters. Although, tabulation is still quite simple.
Contrast to IRV, which is about as algorithmically/conceptually complex (some might argue even less so), but much more labor-intensive for administrators.With the third item, we can see a marked difference between Score and Approval Voting. With Score, a voter who thinks a candidate is mediocre can just give that candidate a middle score, and be done with it. With Approval, he may vacillate, unsure which side of the line that candidate should fall on. So even though Approval is simpler in the first two respects, it can take voters longer to complete, and can be perceived as "harder" to use.
As for the fourth item, consider MMP. To American voters, it may seem kind of weird to have this connection between a party list and a local district representative. The actual voting is straightforward—you pick a local candidate, and you pick a party. But the idea that your party gets docked a "list seat" for every local candidate who wins from that party—that's a little abstract.Contrast that with RRV. The algorithm may be complex, but the nature of the process is easy to understand. A group of candidates goes in, and a subset of winners comes out. You rate them to indicate your support. Even the complex algorithm itself can be glossed over as, "the candidates with the most points win, but your vote loses strength based on how much it affected the race so far".You recently said something about PAL:
- By only listing the "local" candidates, and making far-away candidates available only as write-ins, PAL simplifies the ballot.
- Once the slate of winners is decided, PAL assigns representatives to voters, so that each district has one representative from each party, and thus all voters (except at most a Droop quota) can know who "their local representative" is, whom they helped elect.
This immediately seems esoteric. There are "local" candidates..but you can vote for non-local candidates as write-ins? Huh? I don't get it. This literally seems weird to me and scares me off as some overly contrived and arbitrary scheme, right up front. And I'm a voting theory geek! This is kind of complexity that I think is most concerning. It's more like MMP in that it makes the very nature of voting more abstract.
So I think that we can't hold out for perfect simplicity if we want PR.True. Though I think Asset Voting is amazingly simple. "Optional" Asset Voting (Optional Transfer Voting, as I've referred to it) is maybe even better, because it gives voters a choice of whether they want their votes to be transferable.
I think I am a bit behind in this conversation. I am not sure how PR is necessarily better than the traditional "American model", for lack of another term, of representation.
On 3/27/14, Jameson Quinn <jameso...@gmail.com> wrote:--Jameson here was forced to explain SODA in a concise way, because
> Sadly, it seems Electorama is down, or I'd point you there for system
> definitions. I've emailed Rob Lanphier to see if he can fix it.
> So: SODA is "simple optionally-delegated voting":
> 1. Candidates predeclare strict delegation preferences.
> 2. Voters vote approval ballots, but if you vote for one candidate only,
> your vote is considered delegated, and that candidate will be able to
> (effectively) add approvals to your ballot if they are not able to win.
> 3. In descending order of number of votes held, candidates assign the
> approvals on the ballots delegated to them. (Descending order, because that
> way, in a chicken dilemma situation, the stronger candidate will get the
> first chance to not share votes, so by the time the weaker candidate
> chooses, they will have a clear choice of sharing their votes with the
> strong candidate they prefer or letting one they like less win.)
his usual ultra-long impossible-to-read explanation was "sadly" offline.
Notice, he did it tolerably well. If this were edited without lengthening it,
it would become even better.
> PAL is a similar PR system. You can see an explanation (with> graphics!) here<http://qr.ae/GFCI4>
--Unfortunately, here Jameson was able to refer to an ultra-long explanation
involving numerous extremely annoying and stupid pictures of birds,
I was just looking at the link to PAL that you gave. I think it seems mostly quite good. I think the explanation isn't always that clear in places though. I don't think it's that clear what the graphics in 3 and 4 mean. Also, it says that every winning party gets a representative in each district (in graphic 4) before it's made clear (i.e. in writing) that a representative can have more than one district.
So you'll have readers thinking "What I a party only gets one representative?" for quite a while before they find out the answer. It took me a little while to realise what graphic 4 meant and I'm still not sure what graphic 3 means.Also, although every voter will have a representative, if there is only one candidate elected from their favoured party, it's not necessarily going to be a local representative since they could be based anywhere. Presumably since it's a secret ballot, it's up to voters to determine who their representative is? Given that, people might choose different representatives to contact on different issues. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but it means that the idea of one representative per person isn't that solid under this system. Also, although people might vote for a local candidate, candidates' own preferences aren't necessarily that likely to be local, so the idea of voting for a local candidate is broken as soon as your candidate is eliminated and your vote transferred. Possibly more of an observation than a criticism, but I think it's worth mentioning given that it's supposed to be about local representatives.While parties with many candidates elected would have them spread geographically so that no individual would have too many people to represent, if you had an independent that got a lot of support nationally, then because they have no party, they would presumably cover all the districts and they might have a disproportionately large number of voters who consider them to be their representative.
Is the voting system just STV except with your candidate's ranking rather than your own?