4 ms·

Here's a relatively new PR method developed by a grad student at Harvard. It's an interesting twist on STV that avoids the ballot complexity. https://medium.c

Here's a relatively new PR method developed by a grad student at Harvard. It's an interesting twist on STV that avoids the ballot complexity. https://medium.com/@jameson.quinn/place-voting-explained-129e65cbb625 https://medium.com/@jameson.quinn/place-voting-explained-129... I agree with others on this thread that the only solution to gerrymandering is some form of PR. PLACE voting is interesting because it doesn't require a change in the ballot and retains the notion of geographic districts.

dragonwriter 9y ago
Not requiring a change of ballots when you are doing very different things with them is, IMO, a negative traits because it creates a false familiarity. When you are changing how ballots work, this should be unavoidably obvious, even to people who spent the time the change was being debated in a coma or Antarctic research expedition. Also, STV in small (~5 member) districts gets much improved proportionality from the status quo, keeps geographic districts, and increases the proportion of people with someone representing both their ideology and district simultaneously.
- Sniffnoy 9y ago
  > Not requiring a change of ballots when you are doing very different things with them is, IMO, a negative traits because it creates a false familiarity. I don't think that's something you can really do with voting systems, though. Lots of voting systems are based around the same input assumptions, i.e., people are submitting a rank-order of preferences. And nothing's saying you'd have to switch to PLACE from STV rather than from FPTP. Regardless I think it doesn't make a lot of sense to associate ordinal ballots with STV specifically rather than just, well, what they are, which is a rank-order of preferences, that will get used somehow.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > I don't think that's something you can really do with voting systems You can sometimes, you can't others. > Lots of voting systems are based around the same input assumptions, i.e., people are submitting a rank-order of preferences But FPTP is not based on that input, so changing from FPTP to a more proportional system (many of which rely on that kind of input) provided a clear opportunity to have a clean break without false familiarity. > And nothing's saying you'd have to switch to PLACE from STV rather than from FPTP. The false familiarity is FPTP -> PLACE.
    - Sniffnoy 9y ago
      Ah! I misunderstood. You're talking about the possibility of "check one, go by that candidate's endorsed ballot". (Something that could really be added to just about any voting system; I hadn't really considered it as essential to PLACE in particular.) Yeah, that's an interesting point against that feature, then. Hadn't considered that.

dragonwriter 9y ago

Not requiring a change of ballots when you are doing very different things with them is, IMO, a negative traits because it creates a false familiarity. When you are changing how ballots work, this should be unavoidably obvious, even to people who spent the time the change was being debated in a coma or Antarctic research expedition. Also, STV in small (~5 member) districts gets much improved proportionality from the status quo, keeps geographic districts, and increases the proportion of people with someone representing both their ideology and district simultaneously.

Sniffnoy 9y ago
> Not requiring a change of ballots when you are doing very different things with them is, IMO, a negative traits because it creates a false familiarity. I don't think that's something you can really do with voting systems, though. Lots of voting systems are based around the same input assumptions, i.e., people are submitting a rank-order of preferences. And nothing's saying you'd have to switch to PLACE from STV rather than from FPTP. Regardless I think it doesn't make a lot of sense to associate ordinal ballots with STV specifically rather than just, well, what they are, which is a rank-order of preferences, that will get used somehow.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > I don't think that's something you can really do with voting systems You can sometimes, you can't others. > Lots of voting systems are based around the same input assumptions, i.e., people are submitting a rank-order of preferences But FPTP is not based on that input, so changing from FPTP to a more proportional system (many of which rely on that kind of input) provided a clear opportunity to have a clean break without false familiarity. > And nothing's saying you'd have to switch to PLACE from STV rather than from FPTP. The false familiarity is FPTP -> PLACE.
  - Sniffnoy 9y ago
    Ah! I misunderstood. You're talking about the possibility of "check one, go by that candidate's endorsed ballot". (Something that could really be added to just about any voting system; I hadn't really considered it as essential to PLACE in particular.) Yeah, that's an interesting point against that feature, then. Hadn't considered that.