> Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 00:32:14 +0100 > From: "James Gilmour" <jgilm...@globalnet.co.uk> > To: <election-methods@lists.electorama.com> > Subject: Re: [EM] Preferential Party List Method Proposal > Message-ID: <1E8F1DC34EB34C50A49239C7C1BA6CCB@u2amd> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Greg Nisbet > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 10:25 PM > > All current forms of party list proportional representation > > have each voter cast a vote for a single party. I say this is > > inadequate since a small party can be eliminated and hence > > denied any representation (this is particularly relevant if > > the legislature has a threshold). However, votes for a party > > that doesn't have sufficient support to win any seats in the > > legislature are simply wasted. > > Not necessarily so. See "apparentement". Parties can "chain" their votes > so that fewer votes are wasted in the seat allocation > calculations. > > James Gilmour >
Apparentement as it were (or even panachage, as the Swiss allow), still are not the same type of method as the type I propose. Apparentement, as I am now aware exists, is solely at the discretion of the parties, and thus doesn't reflect the wishes of the voters directly, and as such cannot truthfully be called a "preferential allocation method" since it does not allow the expression of arbitrary preferences and panachage is too candidate-centric and not flexible enough to be a method of the same ilk as the one I propose. I thank you for educating me on this matter, but believe I am nevertheless technically correct (at least by a reasonable definition of "preferential method").
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info