by Toby Pereira, Nov. 2015
Here are several concrete tentative system suggestions for Canada. I am putting them here (http://rangevoting.org/CanadaSA7.html) just to serve as a reference point for further discussion. Toby Pereira stood (unsuccessfully) for election as an independent British MP from the district of Braintree in 2015. He describes himself as a "philosopher and comedian" and he wrote this book about consciousness.
I'm going to suggest some concrete proposals that use approval and score voting. Basically, we have two main choices in my systems: approval versus score, and summability versus non-summability. But for score, I will only propose a summable version.
1a. Non-summable version (approval) – Each candidate has a pre-declared list of the other candidates in the country that they approve. Party candidates automatically approve all candidates from their own party. Also, all candidates either approve all or none of the candidates from any particular party.
1b. Summable version (approval and score) – Each candidate gives a score (e.g. 0-9 or 0-10) to each other candidate in the country. Party candidates automatically top rate all candidates from their own party. Also, all candidates rate all candidates from any particular party equally.
2a. Approval version – Each voter has a ballot paper listing all candidates standing in that riding. They approve as many or as few as they like. They can also write in one other candidate standing elsewhere in the country. The candidate in each riding with the most approvals (ignoring write-ins) is elected.
2b. Score version – Each voter has a ballot paper listing all candidates standing in that riding. They give scores (e.g. 0-9 or 0-10) to the candidates. Blank is counted as zero. They can also write in one other candidate standing elsewhere in the country. The candidate in each riding with the highest total score, or average (they would be the same in this case) – ignoring write-ins – is elected.
We now move to the top-up phase.
3a. Non-summable (approval) – Each voter takes on all the pre-declared approvals of each candidate that they themselves approved. The rest of the seats are awarded proportionally in a sequential manner (with seats already won taken into account) using either the Phragmen or Ebert system (detailed elsewhere but can be again here if needed). Where there is a tie for the next seat to be awarded, then whichever candidate had the most approvals from voters is elected.
3b. Summable (approval and score) – On the ballot, each voter has the option to indicate which of their approved (or top-rated in score) candidates they want to delegate their vote to. If they write in a candidate, then it is this candidate by default. If there is no indication of which to use, then the vote is delegated to the candidate who received the most approvals/highest score in the riding. Each voter then takes on the pre-declared scores of the candidate they have delegated to. The rest of the seats are awarded proportionally in a sequential manner (with seats already won taken into account) using the score conversion of either the Phragmen or Ebert system (detailed elsewhere but can be again here if needed). Where there is a tie for the next seat to be awarded, then whichever candidate had the most approvals/highest total score (including write-ins – they count as approved/top-rated) from voters is elected.
Although the non-summable version has the advantage of giving more overall freedom to voters, the summable version also has the advantage of using score data rather than just approval data. Even though it uses score data, the summable approval system still counts as an approval system because the voters themselves merely cast approvals. The scoring is just for the candidates to do.
Return to main page