I left out one of the most important advantages of PAL voting: that it's dead simple for voters. Though you can vote a more-expressive ballot if you want to, a simple bullet vote is enough to give good, proportional but not party-centric, results.
Jameson 2011/12/3 Jameson Quinn <jameson.qu...@gmail.com> > Does "American PR" have a specific meaning yet? I'm sure I'll be in favor > of it, whatever PR variant it is; but while I'm still ignorant, let me > guess a little. > > I doubt it's a mixed-member system. They're good, but the US, despite (or > perhaps because of) being one of the most partisan countries around, has > too much suspicion of "party machines" for that to catch on. > > So that leaves ... I guess the most-probable options are global STV or STV > in small multimember districts (3-5 members). > > Again, these are both quite good systems I'd support. But if it's not too > late to offer a suggestion... I'd strongly encourage you to consider > something like PAL > representation<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/PAL_representation>. > It's certainly not the simplest system there is, but then no PR system is > really simple. And as advantages you get: > -- High potential for 100% continuity (if the statewide gerrymander was > fairly proportional, and if third parties don't pick up any seats). This is > a HUGE advantage when selling to incumbents. I mean, seriously, tremendous. > -- Voters and/or peers have the real power to remove even the most > well-encrusted incumbent if they sour on him or her. That is, it's > voter-centric, not party-centric > -- Almost every voter gets their own local representative WHOM THEY VOTED > FOR. This is absolutely something that would resonate with US voters, > raised on tales of "No taxation without representation". > > Check it out. > > (And yes, I think that we can work together over PR, even if we don't see > eye-to-eye on single winner systems.) > > Jameson > 2011/12/3 David L Wetzell <wetze...@gmail.com> > >> >> American PR is a coming. You must decide if you want to keep quibbling >> over the best single-winner election rule or push hard for a better mix of >> multi and single-winner election rules in the US. >> >> dlw >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Rob Richie <r...@fairvote.org> >> Date: Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 11:05 AM >> Subject: Re: how goes American PR? >> To: David L Wetzell <wetze...@gmail.com> >> >> >> A little slow in getting our American PR-like plans drawn, but we'll have >> them done for hte whole country in early 2012 and heat up in our >> outreach... getting some related opeds. >> >> Next year should be a good one for the idea -- lots of chances to talk >> about it. >> Rob >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:26 PM, David L Wetzell <wetze...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> >>> I wonder if tea-partiers unhappy w. the Republican party might get in on >>> it? >>> >>> dlw >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> "Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice" >> >> Rob Richie >> Executive Director >> >> FairVote >> 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610 >> Takoma Park, MD 20912 >> www.fairvote.org <http://www.fairvote.org> r...@fairvote.org >> (301) 270-4616 >> >> Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- >> see http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider >> a gift to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's CFC number >> is 10132.) Thank you! >> >> >> >> ---- >> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list >> info >> >> >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
