Talk:Panachage

Here's a nice source

http://www.electionpassport.com/electoral-systems/honduras/

This has information about panachage. However, I don't have time to write an article, and I'm not sure this is reliable. Can someone use this to help out the article?

block voting or cumulative voting?

this article compares the effects of this method with block voting. But the article 'open list' states in describing this method "Voters may also give more votes to one candidate, in a manner similar to cumulative voting, " yet this article states to the contrary that "Because panachage uses block plurality to elect candidate..." This is despite descriptions of individual systems of some countries here mentioning in a few instances at least limited possibility of multiple votes for a single candidate, but apparently isn't treated as a typical feature of the system. Now, as far as I understand it (and how its described elsewhere on wiki), block voting and cumulative voting have very different effects in re to center squeeze, and overall proportionality of the final result:

- From the article on cumulative voting "When voters in the minority concentrate their votes in this way for just one candidate, it increases their chances of obtaining representation in a legislative body. This is different from bloc voting, where a voter may not vote more than once for any candidate and the largest single block, even if less than 50 percent, can control all the representation elected in the district."

- and from the article on closely related satisfaction approval, where one's vote is split into 1/n fractions when one indicates support for n candidates : "Satisfaction approval voting is a semi-proportional voting system, making it similar to single non-transferable vote (semi-proportional plurality) and cumulative voting. In other words, SAV is proportional so long as voters are perfectly strategic. Because of this semi-proportionality, SAV tends to be more proportional than block voting, but does not create fully representative results."

Naively I wouldn't expect there to be any effect on proportionality of inter-party distribution at all if multiple votes can be given to the same candidate vs having just one vote, as having only one vote creates an inter-party Single non-transferable vote, and so would giving all of one's multiple votes to a single candidate, and yet spliting the power of that vote over (an appropriately and tactically chosen number of) multiple candidates approximates automatically what happens under single non-transferable vote tactically, where voters of a faction "do best if their supporters evenly distribute their votes among the party's candidates" (from article on SNTV), for eg by means of a near-random variable such as by giving the "vote for the candidate that corresponded to their birthdate" etc.

So I think it should be rather important to get this one right, which of these is actually true, is it like block voting, or is one allowed to give all or any (smaller) number of votes to a single candidate like in cumulative voting in a typical implementation? 141.138.33.95 (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)