Posts made by Matija

@toby-pereira I'm copying the non-awardment version of MMP, which is more proportional than others.

@toby-pereira The first step is to guarantee every district a locally supported MP as long as they can agree on who should represent them.

Election takes place in a district cluster comprising 10 or more districts, each to be represented by 2 MPs. Each candidate runs in a single district but voters can vote for any candidates in the cluster.
In each district the candidate that got the largest number of votes from their own district is elected as long as that number is not smaller than Hare quota.
Candidates are elected step by step until each district has two MPs representing it. In each step the candidate with the most favorable ABC+A+B+C score among the candidates with less than 2 MPs already representing their district is elected.

@toby-pereira the problem I see with approval is that political parties could split to get more funding.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1925_German_presidential_election

Two-round presidential election with 3 candidates in the second round is a factor I can think of.

With ranked voting it's easy - just take the top choice of every voter and use that for the amount of funding each candidates' party receives for the next election.

The governing coalition opted for open lists. Phragmén-MMP would be better because we generally like the idea of independent candidates.
Though open lists are still better than MMP with runoff.

@lime I was talking about bullet voting with the goal of gaining a representative who lives nearby.

I got an impression that in proportional approval voting, at least some voters might be incentivized to bullet vote for candidates who live nearby. Some level of biproportionality may remove this incentive.

I think it's clear why this would not produce proportional outcomes: with voting taking place on two separate ballots, there would be no way to balance out independents' seats. Some political parties could even exploit this flaw. Such a system would be worse than the current party lists system.
There will be a referendum on whether we should adopt that electoral system.

@toby-pereira It's simpler to count and simpler to compute. ABC+A+B+C might be slightly more monotonic and is equivalent to using d'hondt formula.

A simple way to calculate sequential Ebert is to add for each already elected candidate, the number of voters who voted for both already elected candidate and considered candidate divided by number of voters who voted for already elected candidate. Then plug the sum into Sainte lague formula as number of party seats.

@anniek Sequential Ebert is precinct summable and fully proportional. It still has rounds but doesn't require counting ballots more than once. Might be what you're looking for.

@isocratia said in Vertical composition of multiwinner approval methods:

My basic use-case for this technique is when the first phase is simple bloc approval voting that filters out anyone with more than, say, 75% disapproval (this threshold is a parameter), and the second phase is some proportional approval voting method.

I would do the opposite: filter out anyone who would skew proportionality then apply a single winner method.

In MMP, a district seat is typically assigned to the party which nominated the winner of that district. But what if instead we check which parties the winner's supporters voted for and then split the seat among those parties?
For example, if 50% of winner's supporters voted for party A, then that party would get half of the district seat.
As long as every district winner receives more than 50% of the vote this would prevent overhang seats.

One option would be 3s/2+4s+5s

Say two candidates have enough 3s to meet the quota but not enough 4s to meet the quota. What should act as a tiebreaker? The original version suggests number of 3s but I would argue that having a quota of 3s is already 'enough' and that the candidate with more 4s is closer to having a quota of 4s so that candidate should be preferred.

@rob said in Thoughts on the article 2 section 1 paragraph 3 of the U.S. constitution?:

@matija I don't believe there is a scenario where the vote is repeated.

Not by the electoral college itself

I don't know if I understood it correctly, when there is no clear winner the electors don't repeat the vote?