--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "The Center for Election Science" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/electionscience/sz-_YZSS-UU/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to electionscien...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "The Center for Election Science" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/electionscience/sz-_YZSS-UU/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to electionscien...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Jan Kok "I don't recommend using Approval Voting in multiple winner elections,"...
Although there are things to be said in favor of other multiwinner methods (already under discussion in this forum), scoring Approval ballots as Reweighted Range Voting (RRV) seems to me as not among the worst ways to go.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "The Center for Election Science" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/electionscience/sz-_YZSS-UU/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to electionscien...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
QUESTION: In LP elections, how often does NOTA actually win?
(Just interested.)
Is there a good example of Proportional Approval Voting somewhere? I haven't run across this term. I want to be sure I understand it.
CES gathered most of the voting-related text of its bylaws into a single article, 3 Voting. You can find the bylaws here:
http://www.electology.org/#!transparency/c65g
Also a bit of “By-Law Amendment Language” is offered here:
http://www.electology.org/#!tools/c1jc4
However, it is all for single-winner decisions.
We expressly include NOTA. The majority requirement is imposed by Robert's Rules of Order and other parliamentary authorities, but we allow for the decision basis to be lowered.
Hello all. I have been an advocate for Approval Voting for many years now. I am on the LP Texas state committee and currently serving as Rules chair for preparation for our 2016 state convention.
James Holland (both of us are in San Antonio) is a rules committee member as well and we want to work on establishing quite clear and simple rules stating absolute preference for using approval voting. I would really like to make a statement through LP Texas in how we function that AV is a better system. I believe the LP should be a strong advocate and hopefully other state affiliate will follow and AV will adopt a more solidly clear preference within the LP. I think if we are going to advocate for election reforms then we should be using it ourselves without question.We are still in review so nothing as been written yet but we have two major issues that we have to deal with. (Ignoring the fact that we have to get anything past the delegates but that is an internal party matter).
- NOTA: The LP uses None of the Above in our elections. We do not believe that just because candidates are on the ballot that one of them must be selected. I am a strong proponent of treating NOTA just as another option on the ballot although this might be a small hurdle against some that want to treat it as a special case (If you vote for NOTA you cannot make another selection).
- Majority Votes: I do not think majority requirements are necessary but I think we may have to add them in for some instances.
Why I am writing the group is to see if anyone would like to give an advice or input into the matter. Our current rules have voting sprinkled throughout and when it comes to voting in conventions is a quite tangled mess. (if anyone is brave enough to look: http://www.lptexas.org/state-rules) I certainly don't mind discussing any draft version either later in case people want to point out any gotchas or caveats that we might not be aware of. We are very eager to see a straight forward and reliable voting system used as an example.
There was some unfortunate history at our last convention with using approval voting that put a "bad taste" in some peoples mouth. We had a very contentious election. We had a voting confirmation group come in (I forget their name) and assist with our voting. Them being confused by AV and our rules being so confusing caused a lot of issues and really delayed the vote counting to an extreme amount. This caused people to blame AV unfortunately. I am really hoping to get around that and get people comfortable with the idea before this next convention.Vendors and groups can get booths there but I am not in charge of that so I don't know how it works. If any of yall are near Texas (the 2016 convention will be in San Antonio in April) I hope you can come as well!Also thanks to everyone that works for the center for election science and the website. The video is especially helpful for giving to people new to the idea. I can try to keep information updated if anyone has any interest. Thanks!
--
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.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "The Center for Election Science" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/electionscience/sz-_YZSS-UU/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to electionscien...@googlegroups.com.
Thanks for all the feedback so far!The only multiwinner votes I can think of are for delegate spots at our conventions. For instance we have N delegate positions in a county and only that many delegates (ignoring alternates) can fill those seats. We used approval voting in our county last year and it worked well. Top vote getters got the seats. Any ties could be resolved by the chair or some random method if needed really.Jameson, I am intrigued by your idea because I have encountered the "but I want to pick my favorite" before. It does seem to be a kid gloves version of range voting. My only initial concern is complexity still. Not only in writing rules about it but getting people to understand.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "The Center for Election Science" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/electionscience/sz-_YZSS-UU/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to electionscien...@googlegroups.com.
...
This isn't really proportional representation because its really a bunch of single individuals competing for multiple open seats. There are no seats to be divided proportionally between groups. Basically we nominate a bunch of people from the floor and people vote on who should get the available seats. Does that make sense?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "The Center for Election Science" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/electionscience/sz-_YZSS-UU/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to electionscien...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Don't you need factions for that to work though?
It is not necessary for anyone in the group to recognize, identify, discern, name, or have conscious awareness of the factions. Factions may exist in the different valuations the voters have regarding the candidacies. If such factions exist, the voting system may be able to find them by itself. There is no need for the humans to feed any party or faction or tendency identifiers to the voting system -- only the votes themselves.Tallying proceeds in rounds, where each round finds one winner. Finding the first winner is straightforward -- it is the candidate who received the most count of approvals. For the subsequent rounds, you weight the votes based on the winners already found and who approved them. Those votes get a lower weight than the full weight they originally had. The grounds for this is that those voters already have some representation in the set of already-found winners. So the second winner is who gets the highest score based on the weighted votes. Approvals of candidates already determined as winners don't count in this comparison. After the second round, the tally determines a new set of weights for the votes based on the two winners already determined. Conduct additional rounds like that until sufficient seats are filled.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "The Center for Election Science" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/electionscience/sz-_YZSS-UU/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to electionscien...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.