Dear Donald
An interesting question. Which is worse, a large party being
under-represented by 100 seats, or a party with 1% of the votes
having no seat at all?
There are some groups that might command 0.2% support that I would
not like to see represented, but I would still prefer that to the
present system. One would not want to set the threshold too high,
lest the groups continue to feel unduly discriminated against.
I have thought of one problem: What about independents? Maybe there
is some small print already. My suggestion would be to treat all
independents as a single party, but to give seats to those who get
the most votes but were not elected instead of having a 'party list'.
This would encourage 'independents' to declare allegiance to a party
so that their votes are more accurately apportioned. Maybe one could
have a pseudo-party, such as 'left-ish independents' that simply
exists for the purpose of vote redistribution.
I hope the system would be reviewed periodically to make any small
adjustments that might become necessary.
Regards
David Marsay
> Dear David Marsay,
>
> One thing that is missing is news of a possible artificial threshold.
>
> This proposal will give representation to more small parties and their
> voters, but the size of any artificial threshold will limit that
> improvement.
>
> I hope no threshold is imposed.
>
> In any event this proposal will still be an improvement.
>
> Regards,
> Donald Davison
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry folks, but apparently I have to do this. :-(
The views expressed above are entirely those of the writer
and do not represent the views, policy or understanding of
any other person or official body.
