This would be my
conclusion that the system (below) creates a disproportionate voting
system, not a proportionate voting system. In fact, it is a system of
weightage, as it can give more seats than actually match the proportionate
numbers in a category in the electoral
college.
There is only proportion if there are 24:24:12 persons (or
higher number of persons, but in same ratio) in each category of the
electoral college, and no one can guarantee that this will always be so, let
alone where anyone may even be categorised in the first place, or who is going
to do the categorization.
24:24:12 will give you 2:2:1 but clearly if there are
actually 30:20:10 persons in each category, still it is intended to produce
2:2:1 (when it should be producing 3:2:1), then there is a disproportionate
voting system for some, and weightage in favour of minorities. Same if there are
35:20:5 - it does not give 2:2:1 - so it is disproportionate - but still they
want the votes to come out 2:2:1 (when it should be 7:4:1). Ultimately
when the numbers do not stack up, someone is really taking advantage
of someone else's portion of the election rights. To cloak the real
facts - ie what the statistics are on the ground - the artificiality of 3
groupifications is invented pretending they represent 2:2:1, when that may not
even be the truth when one actually counts the real figures. No one knows
that the numbers in the 3 groupifications will always actually be in
ratio 2:2:1 (or even within the 5% margin of error acceptable in
statistics) and no one will know or be able to judge in the
future.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, 9 October 2006 8:50 PM
To: election-methods@electorama.com
Subject: Re: [EM] Disproportionate or proportionate representation systemDharma wrote:
> > raphfrk at netscape.net [mailto:raphfrk at netscape.net]
>
> Dharma (subscribed lists) wrote:
>
> > What are the views on this sort of electoral system - is it proportional
> > representation or disproportional.
>
> << the top 2 parties gets 40% of the seats each and the the 3rd party gets
> 20% >>
>
> D: Yes. And we never truly know the number of electors in each party. That
> is A could fluctuate around 30+/-10 and so on. Isn't it proportional if the
> number of electors in each group actually do reflect the numbers actually
> elected as representatives.? Otherwise it is disproportional.
Well, it would be proportion in terms of seats allocated but not proportional
in terms of power.
>
> > The result, assuming the following numbers of electors:
> >
> > A - 30
> > B - 90
> > C - 15
>
> > Are the electors assigned in proportion to the popular support for the
> > parties?
>
>
> Not necessarily. Say there are 3 ethic groups as the basis of the
> assigning. The number of electors in each group is below and as are the
> voting proportions. So groups A, B, C are different ethnic groups within a
> particular association.
Ahh, so electors = voters ? I was confused, I though you were talking
about something like the electoral college, where electors are elected
by the voters.
> > A - 30 get a percentage of 24/60 votes
> > B - 90 get a percentage of 24/60 votes
> > C - 15 get a percentage of 12/60 votes
> >
> > Then reducing each down to one person
> >
> > A - 1 person gets 1.333% of the election rights
> > B - 1 person gets 0.444% of the election rights
> > C - 1 person gets 1.333% of the election rights
> >
> > The vote of a B is worth only 1/3rd of any other vote.
>
> Right, this gives less voting power to electors from group A.
>
> Did you mean group B?Yeah, right.
I think the issue with something like this is that it crystalised the power state
when the country is formed. How would it work anyway, would a voter have to
specify what faction they were a part of (or would it be ethnic?) and then they
only get to vote for that faction?
OTOH, it does mean that the country doesn't go unstable if demographics change.
For example, if a country was 40%, 40% and 20% as you suggest, then there is
balance of power. However, if one faction has a higher birth rate and gets to
50%, then suddenly, there could be tyranny of the majority. Having a rule that
all parties will have a certain power acts as a check against that. Also, it
would prevent something like a faction try to encourage mass immigration from
a neighbouring country.
A similar effect can be achieved by having a super-majority requirement. If a 2/3
majority is required to pass legislation, then tryanny of the majority is alot more
difficult to pull off. Also, it means that you don't need to code ethnic
discrimination into the core laws of the society.Raphfrk
--------------------
Interesting site
"what if anyone could modify the laws"
www.wikocracy.com
---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
