Dear Donald, you wrote (12 Jan 2003): > Dear Markus, you wrote: "The aim of proportional representation is to > minimize the number of wasted votes. However, proportionality is not the > only criterion for a good multi-winner method." Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002, > > Donald here: I will agree that proportionality is not the only criterion > for a good multi-winner method. An election method should be designed so > that these other criterions are considered and included, but having said > that, I also say that the acceptance of these other criterions should not > be an excuse to depreciate party proportionality. Proportionality does > not need to go down in order for other criterions to be included. Party > proportionalty can and should be maintain at near 100%.
When you substitute the term "party proportionality" with "proportionality" then I agree with everything you say. ****** You wrote (12 Jan 2003): > Markus: "I prefer PR-STV because STV makes it posssible for independent > candidates to get elected." > > Donald: I am in favor of independent candidates being able to run in any > election method and I feel they should be able to get on the ballot with > the same ease as party candidates, but you must realize that an independent > candidate has two strikes against him before the race begins. He does not > receive the money nor the leg work that a party candidate will receive, nor > does he receive the automatic party votes that a party candidate will > receive. > > This is because most voters will trust a party more than an independent > candidate to represent them and while this representation will be via a > party candidate, the party voters will expect the party to keep the party > candidate's nose to the party line. There is no party to keep an > independent candidate in line. You may be a idealist Markus, but most > voters are realist. I guess that the main reason why voters vote rather for party candidates than for independent candidates is that the Banzhaf power index of a bloc of N members of parliament is more than N times larger than the Banzhaf power index of a single member of parliament. ****** You wrote (12 Jan 2003): > Markus: "In the last elections (27 Sep 1998) to the German Bundestag, > something happened that demonstrated the direct link between the voters and > their MPs: One poll station accidently used ballots that had been printed > for a different constituency so that wrong candidates were listed on these > ballots. The poll station opened at 8:00 am and this accident was > discovered by a voter at 1:15 pm. Until then, already 277 voters had voted > without even noticing that wrong ballots were being used." > > Donald: You should accept this event as proof that most voters vote for > party first, not the candidate. Therefore, the better method of the future > will be a method in which the voter is free to rank parties and/or > candidates in any mix. Your statement is very strange because I promote a system where the voter is free to rank parties and candidates in any mix while you promote MMP. ****** You wrote (12 Jan 2003): > Markus: "In Germany, the party label is printed next to the according > candidate." > > Donald: This is necessary in order for the voter to vote for his party > regardless of the candidate. It is the desire of the majority to vote for > their party first, don't fight it Markus, join them, allow the voter to > rank both parties and candidates. I'm not fighting it. You are fighting it. I want you to remember that I promote a system where voters can rank both parties and candidates while you promote MMP. In one of my 24 Dec 2002 mails, I wrote: "I suggest that a voter should be able to rank parties and candidates." Markus Schulze ---- For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
