On Jul 17, 2008, at 18:38 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I can see three different local/personal representation concepts
here. (just to clarify my thoughts, and maybe help some others too)
I think a better way of breaking down those options would be based
on the how the seats are allocated.
The whole regional/national/district issue is separate. Ofc, for
single seaters, it has to be district based.
The main issue is the party list vs PR-STV question.
My naming of the three concepts was quite confusing. Another way to
name them is 1) direct and and known official link between the
representative and a set of voters, 2) regional proportionality and
3) personally selected representative (typically secret, known only
by the voter).
I left political/ideological/party proportionality out for the most
part and focused only on the regional proportionality and established
links between the voter and the representative.
The problem is that a party list system breaks
the link between the candidate and the elected member. Party
members must remain loyal to the
party as the party has all the power.
(Diego Santos already noted that open lists keep some clear links
between the voters and the candidates.)
However, even if you didn't vote for him. He will still likely try
to help you.
Yes. In some set-ups one could considered it to be a benefit of the
system not to have a fixed/known relationship between the voters and
representatives.
....STV-PR...
larger parties not wanting to
increase the average number of seats per district.
This sounds like an intentional threshold (implemented using small
size districts).
Juho
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
