Hi
See below
Dharma
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 5 October 2006 8:49 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [EM] Disproportionate or proportionate representation systemDharma (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.> 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.
> 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?
However, this is not necessarily a bad thing. For example, party
A might assign 90 electors even though it has only 40% of the
popular vote. In effect, each party would decide if it wants lots
of low power representatives or a small number of high power
representatives. I doubt that is what you meant though ?
However, an issue with the suggestion is that it gives all 3
parties equal power if they block vote. Any two parties will
have 50%+ of the vote. This means that even though party C is
the weakest party, it gets equal say to the other 2. If the
top 2 parties don't maintain party discipline, then party C's
power is somewhat diminished as in a free vote, co-operation
between the top 2 parties is improved.
What is the reason for suggesting this system ? I assume it is
to guarantee that a 3rd party exists, or is it to ensure that no
party gets an outright majority ?
(assuming that it won't defeat the purpose)
What about having the rule recognising when a party gets an outright
majority.
A is the largest party. B is next and C is 3rd largest.
Voters can vote for any party, but only the top 3 parties gets any seats.
if A gets > 50%, the split is:
A: 55%
B: 30%
C: 15%
If A gets more than 1/3 and <= 50%
A: 45%
B: 35%
C: 25%
If A gets < 1/3 (can only happen with a 4th party "spoiling")
A: 35%
B: 33%
C: 32%
Such a system isn't very fair on the 4th party. Also, proportional
systems can ensure that a party gets an exact percentage to match its
popular support.
I think something like asset voting, PR-STV or even the open party
list method would be better. They all allow more parties to exist
than 3.
I think that preventing 1 party from dominating is best served
by having a system that allows multiple parties to exist rather than
force it . However, ideally, the voting system should not
recognise the existance of parties at all.
---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
