Re: [OT] Voting schemes

From: "K.H.Ranitzsch" <KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de>

> Just note, that even in the present, there are perfectly good
democracies
> that do not use a district-based, winner-take-all scheme to choose
their
> parliaments.
>
> The most popular alternatives are :
> * a district-based scheme where the winner has to get at least half
the
> votes - if there is no clear decision in the first round of voting,
there
is
> arun-off a few weeks later between the two frontrunners.
> * proportional representation: each party presents a list of
candidates,
and
> then gets as many seats as corresponds to their percentage of the
votes.

AFAIK the most complex system is the Hare-Clark system with Robson
Rotation.
See http://www.elections.act.gov.au/hare.html (Robson Rotation means
that
the
order of candidates/parties is different on each ballot sheet, just to
make
life interesting.)

The Australian penchant for the rather complex optional-preferential
voting
is
well-known. But Hare-Clarke is the most complex variant of this - and
some
would
say the fairest *shrug*. Used only by Tasmania, Ireland, and the
Australian
Capital
Territory.

The ACT Election took 93 counts to get just one of the 3 electorate's
results. See http://www.softimp.com.au/Molonglo2001.html

It's also somewhat tricky to computerise. But can be (and has been) done
successfully. See http://www.softimp.com.au/news.html#EVACS So the
result
was known within a day or two of the close of postal and absentee
voting.
And no "dangling chads". No dangling Central African Republics either.

BTW Software Improvements normally does military and other
high-reliability
high-security stuff. They take on jobs that others won't. Developing an
open-
source electoral voting and counting system to run on normal hardware in
27 weeks, for example. "Fools rush in, where Angels fear to tread..."
Still,