But why would you want all these differences and complications? If you are going to use STV-PR for some of these elections, why not use STV-PR for all of these elections to the various "representative assemblies" (councils, state legislatures, US House of Representatives, US Senate). STV-PR works OK in both partisan and non-partisan elections, so it should give fair and proper representation of the VOTERS in all these different elections.
Of course, with districts returning only 3 to 5 members, the proportionality and direct representation MAY be a little limited, but if small numbers are needed to make the system acceptable to the vested interests, then so be it. STV-PR with 3, 4 or 5 member districts is greatly to be preferred to plurality in single-member districts and to plurality at large. We had to accept local government wards electing only 3 or 4 councillors as part of our STV-PR package - that's practical politics. But that reform has transformed our local government - no more "one-party states". James Gilmour > -----Original Message----- > From: election-methods-boun...@lists.electorama.com > [mailto:election-methods-boun...@lists.electorama.com] On > Behalf Of David L Wetzell > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 2:49 PM > To: EM > Subject: [EM] STV vs Party-list PR, could context matter? > > > It seems to me that a common sense solution would be to base > which gets used on the propensity for voters to be informed > about the elections. > > Also, the two types seem to be bundled with different types > of quotas. STV gets marketed with the droop quota here in > the US. I'm not complaining because it's good to simplify > things. But if STV were bundled with Droop then 3-seat LR > Hare might prove handy to make sure that 3rd parties get a > constructive role to play in US politics. > > So I propose that 3-5 seat STV with a droop quota, perhaps > using AV in a first step to simplify and shorten the > vote-counting and transferring process, for US congressional > elections or city council elections and 3-seat LR Hare for > state representative and aldermen elections. The latter two > elections are less important and get less media coverage and > voter attention. Is it reasonable to expect voters to rank > multiple candidates in an election where they often simply > vote their party line? Why not keep it simple and use the > mix of Droop and Hare quotas to both keep the system's > duopolistic tendencies and to make the duopoly contested? > > It seems to me that most folks think the choice is between > ranked choices or party-list PR. I think it is a matter of > context and that both can be useful, especially when no > explicit party-list is required for a 3-seat LR Hare > election. The vice-candidates who would hold the extra seats > a party wins could either be selected after the victory or > specified before hand. > > So what do you think? > > I'm keeping the seat numbers down because I accept that those > in power aren't going to want an EU multi-party system and > I'm not sure they're wrong about that, plus the US is used to > voting the candidate and having their representative and they > could keep that if there are relatively few seats per election. > > dlw > ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info