On Aug 15, 2008, at 18:45 , Jonathan Lundell wrote:
On Aug 15, 2008, at 7:40 AM, James Gilmour wrote:
Jobst Heitzig said:
It is of no help for a minority to be represented proportionally
when
still a mere 51% majority can make all decisions!
raphfrk replied
I disagree. The advantage is that it allows 'on the fly'
coalition re-organisation.
I also disagree, but for a different reason and even when there is
no chance at all of on-the-fly coalition re-organisation. A
minority of 49% can be very effective in holding the majority to
account and ensuring that the majority's proposals and decisions
are subject to public scrutiny. Here in Scotland, our 32 local
authority councils were all elected from single-member wards (small
electoral districts) by FPTP. We had become used to one-party
states, like Glasgow City Council where one party could hold 74 out
of 79 seats for just 49.6% of the votes city-wide, or Midlothian
Council where one party held 17 of the 18 seats with just 46% of
the votes. When such distorted one-party rule persists for
several decades the political effects are very serious. But we
put an
end to that in May 2007 when we elected all our councillors by STV-
PR. Now there is effective opposition and scrutiny in every
council and the minority voices are heard.
We see something like that in my local five-member school district
(on the California coast hard by Silicon Valley). The electorate is
factionalized (never mind the issues) and there's a consistent
55-60% majority that elects all five members. As a consequence, the
board can hold closed meetings with impunity. STV-PR (these are
nonpartisan elections, so party lists are out) would solve the
problem nicely. (Full disclosure: I ran for the board a few years
ago, losing respectably.)
If you have some issue X, wouldn't it also be natural to have one
list "for X" and one list "against X"? I.e. lists but not "party
lists". You may need to arrange the candidates anyway according to
their opinions in some "lists" to make it clear to the voters who are
"against" and who are "for". STV-PR gives the voters some flexibility
that the list (or tree) based methods do not give but here I didn't
see anything special that would speak against the use of lists.
(Lists may also be more practical in some cases, e.g. if the number
of candidates is high.)
I'm a little skeptical of supermajority or consensus systems, which
can easily lead to paralysis if an sufficient minority simply
refuses to compromise. The California state budget rules are a case
in point; a 2/3 majority is required in both legislative houses to
pass a budget. The result is a perennial budget stalemate.
In that kind of questions either a simple majority should be enough,
or alternatively one could only reopen the discussion with >1/3
support but at the second round simple majority would be enough. I
think supermajorities have a more natural role e.g. when changing (or
amending) constitution.
Juho
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
___________________________________________________________
Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" The Wall Street Journal
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
