Condorcet Proportional Representation or Single Transferable vote.

[Blahface]

Recently I've been considering what a Condorcet version of PR would look like. I thought up of a system and I wonder if it would allow for enough diversity in opinion or if every winner would be pretty moderate. This is how it would work:

1) Start off with all votes equaling a weight of 1.
2) Tabulate rankings and get the Condorcet win (doesn't matter which method).
3) Reweigh the value of each persons vote for the next seat. This would involve multiplying the current weight of each voter's vote by a scale. The value of this scale would be determined by what position they ranked the winner of the last seat.
4) Repeat to step two if there are more seats to fill.

To calculate the scale:
1) Find the average scale. This would be (number of seats-1)/(number of seats)
2) calculate the average ranking value of the last winning candidate( can be a decimal)
3) calculate constant C = (1- Average Scale )/ (number of candidates - average ranking of winner)
4) set the function of each voter scale where R = individuals ranking of winning candidate. f(R)= 1 - (Number of candidates-R)*C

What difference do you think this would make if Australia replaced the STV with this method? Do you think this might accidentally elect candidates? A party list or a voter might disingenuously rank a candidate higher than he would believing that candidate to not be electable. He may do this to minimize devaluing the weight of his vote for each iteration. If everyone were to vote honestly though, do you think this would be a better or worse version of PR than STV?

Also, considering all versions of PR, which version do you like the best?

 

[bilby]

Recently I've been considering what a Condorcet version of PR would look like. I thought up of a system and I wonder if it would allow for enough diversity in opinion or if every winner would be pretty moderate. This is how it would work:

1) Start off with all votes equaling a weight of 1.
2) Tabulate rankings and get the Condorcet win (doesn't matter which method).
3) Reweigh the value of each persons vote for the next seat. This would involve multiplying the current weight of each voter's vote by a scale. The value of this scale would be determined by what position they ranked the winner of the last seat.
4) Repeat to step two if there are more seats to fill.

To calculate the scale:
1) Find the average scale. This would be (number of seats-1)/(number of seats)
2) calculate the average ranking value of the last winning candidate( can be a decimal)
3) calculate constant C = (1- Average Scale )/ (number of candidates - average ranking of winner)
4) set the function of each voter scale where R = individuals ranking of winning candidate. f(R)= 1 - (Number of candidates-R)*C

What difference do you think this would make if Australia replaced the STV with this method? Do you think this might accidentally elect candidates? A party list or a voter might disingenuously rank a candidate higher than he would believing that candidate to not be electable. He may do this to minimize devaluing the weight of his vote for each iteration. If everyone were to vote honestly though, do you think this would be a better or worse version of PR than STV?

Also, considering all versions of PR, which version do you like the best?

Sounds over complicated to me.

There are currently several systems in use in Australia; the Federal House of Representatives vote is elected by Compulsory Preferential voting, the Queensland State Parliament (which is unicameral) uses an Optional Preferential system - these are essentially Instant Runoff systems, rather than STV proper. I don't know what the other states use (they all have bicameral parliaments, so they probably use more than one system each) but the Federal Senate uses a STV system, which, due to the sheer number of candidates, is complemented by a 'party ticket' system, where voters can simply select a pre-filled set of choices made by the party or group of their choice, if they would rather not number in the order of 100 boxes.

The Federal Senate STV system is already, In my opinion, too complex; many voters do not understand how it works, and this is not conducive to a healthy democratic environment. The IRV/Preference system is better than FPTP, in that is is less difficult for third parties to get a toe-hold; and while it is not as good at this as STV or other more complex systems, I feel that the transparency afforded by a system most voters can easily grasp, is worth more than the small increase in representational fairness afforded by more complex methods.

Personally, I think optional preferential IRV is the best compromise; compulsory preferential voting places an unnecessary burden on voters when there are a large number of candidates, as they have to rank their least preferred candidates, even though the probability is low that those rankings will effect the final apportionment of the vote, and even if they despise many of their lowest choice candidates equally.

Voting should be simple, and the system should be easy to understand. Small increases in the probability of a 'fair' result (ie one that is least unpopular amongst the electorate, and which gives a proportionate voice to minor parties) are not worth chasing at the expense of this simplicity and transparency; however changes that do not significantly increase complexity, but lead to large improvements in fairness, (such as by moving from FPTP to IRV) are well worthwhile.

 

[Blahface]

I agree that STV is pretty complicated, but I prefer it over other forms of PR simply because I think it handles remainders the most fairly and it makes the most of your vote. In other PR systems if the party you vote for doesn't get a seat, you just threw away your vote. It shouldn't be an open list though because that is just asking too much from the voter. It should either be a closed party list, or just vote for one candidate and the vote would count towards that candidate's list. Or, you could vote for a party candidate, and all the candidates in the party would have have a say in creating the order of the party list based on how many votes they get. All party members would have to have first priority to be on the list though. There are many different ways to do STV.

Also, speaking of IRV, I happen to think it is easy to understand and I'm sure you do too, but a lot of people just don't understand it. It also doesn't do a great job at stopping spoilers (although it is much better than plurality). I think the simplest and most pragmatic solution is to implement approval voting.