> Anthony Duff Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 3:22 AM > --- James Gilmour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This all sounds very like the "above-the-line" voting that is used in > > the Australian Federal Senate elections. It has perverted STV-PR very > > severely, so that that implementation is really nothing more than > > closed list party PR. > > It does sound "like the "above-the-line" voting that is used > in the Australian Federal Senate elections" and the NSW upper > house elections, and other Australian elections, where it > certainly *seems* to work well, and it is utilised by the > vast majority. > > I know that James Gilmour is philosophically opposed to this > party list option operating within STV. He may be right, but > I have seen no evidence. Perhaps I haven't known where to look. > > Is the statement "It has perverted STV-PR very severely" > based on philosophy, impression or evidence? It is my > impression that there is no perversion.
In making my assertion that the Australian introduction of "above the line" and "below the line" voting to STV-PR was a "perversion", I was going back to the origins of the STV voting system. The original purpose of STV-PR was NOT to obtain PR of registered political parties. The purpose of STV-PR was to obtain PR of whatever the voters wanted (as expressed through their preferences for the candidates who had offered themselves for election). That was the original purpose of STV-PR and it is still the purpose of STV-PR everywhere it is used, except in Australia. Of course, when the voters vote strictly along party lines (as in Malta), STV-PR will give PR of the political parties, but that does not make obtaining PR of registered political parties the purpose and objective of the STV voting system. We must always distinguish careful between outcome and objective. Two systems with different objectives can produce a similar outcome, but that does not make their objectives the same. At much the same time as STV-PR was being developed, promoted and first adopted (late 1800s - early 1900s), very different voting systems, that had as their purpose obtaining PR of registered political parties, were being developed, promoted and adopted. But these party PR developments took place in other countries, with quite different political cultures from those where STV-PR was developed and promoted. Thus many countries in continental Europe have had 100 years or more experience of party-list PR voting systems. "Proportional representation" became an issue at much the same time in all these countries, when there was upheaval in the party political systems, particularly the rise of "workers' parties" that challenged the old order. One key difference between the countries of continental Europe and the UK in their approach to PR, was that political parties were already legally registered entities for electoral purposes in most countries in continental Europe when they considered PR. In contrast, political parties did not become legally registered entities for electoral purposes in the UK until 1998. This, I think, explains the divergent and very different approaches to "PR". > Independent candidates and micro-parties seem overrepresented > in the ballot count. The absence of independent candidates > and micro-parties in the results is not the reality either, > but even if it was, I would argue that it is more a result of > the small number of seats (six per STV district), than a > result of systematic bias towards parties. The analysis of the results of any election is not relevant to an assessment of the primary objective of the voting system. > How would someone measure the "perversion"? "Perversion" of the sort I have asserted cannot be measured. I accept that "Perversion" is statement of opinion, but one that I believe is well-founded on the facts. There should be no doubt that the original objective of STV-PR was not to obtain PR of political parties. There should equally be no doubt that the effect of introducing "above the line" and "below the line" voting to STV has been to make it operate, in practice, as a closed-list party-list voting system. Indeed, that assessment was given by Professor David Farrell when he was asked about this at a conference in Edinburgh in April 2004. I would assert that that change has been so great that it constitutes a "perversion" of the original purpose of STV-PR. James Gilmour ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
