Comments on: Egypt’s potential district boundaries, Ctd. Workers and farmers http://ahwatalk.com/2011/09/20/egypt%e2%80%99s-potential-district-boundaries-ctd-workers-and-farmers/ Elections, Party Systems, and the Middle East Sat, 03 Dec 2011 10:57:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Matthew Shugart http://ahwatalk.com/2011/09/20/egypt%e2%80%99s-potential-district-boundaries-ctd-workers-and-farmers/#comment-208 Wed, 21 Sep 2011 20:20:39 +0000 http://ahwatalk.com/?p=1025#comment-208 “Ordinal tier”? You mean list tier.

I would understand “ordinal” to refer to a ballot type, e.g. ranked-choice, as opposed to “categoric” (as in Rae, 1967).

In fact, Egypt’s nominal tier ballot may be ordinal in a sense, if voters can vote validly by using only one of their allowed two votes. Or even by giving their votes to candidates from different parties. This would be weakly ordinal in the sense of differentiating among nominees of a party.

The list tier, however, is clearly categoric (one vote, at list level only).

Also, it is possible to implement a quota (e.g. for women, or workers) under open lists or SNTV. See Iraq’s most recent elections, or Afghanistan. It might be pointless with 4-6 seats available, but it’s feasible.

]]> By: Bancki http://ahwatalk.com/2011/09/20/egypt%e2%80%99s-potential-district-boundaries-ctd-workers-and-farmers/#comment-207 Wed, 21 Sep 2011 14:07:09 +0000 http://ahwatalk.com/?p=1025#comment-207 Why do you call the PR tier “ordinal” if it’s not STV?

How will the system guarantee seats for ‘workers or farmers’ in the PR tier? Eg one list winning 3 seats and one winning 1 seat, and only one winner is a ‘worker or farmer’, one on the bigger list: which list will have to cede and will send the second ‘worker or farmer’, ignoring a higher placed ‘general’ candidate?

]]>