On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 6:58 PM, James Gilmour <[email protected]>wrote:
> David L Wetzell > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 7:31 PM > > > James Gilmour: But why would you want all these differences > > > and complications? > > > > dlw: Because context matters. > > I have great difficulty in believing that there are such context specific > differences. I could believe that there are differences > in the hostility of the political parties to proposals for reform of the > voting system at different levels of government and that > reforms that the parties might accept at one level would not be acceptable > at another - especially their own election! > dlw: well there are diffs in voter awareness and interest in different elections. If voters are less into "more local" elections then "more options" via STV or what-not wouldn't be as helpful for most voters. They might appreciate the reduced number of candidates, since this reduces the cost of becoming an informed voter in a given election. They also might like the less competitive elections with 2 safe seats. The candidates wouldn't be taking each other to the cleaners but they would be doing their best to promote their parties. > > > > dlw: 1. There are benefits to party-list PR, relative to STV. > > I do not agree that there are any benefits of any party-PR voting system > that outweigh the benefits to the voters of STV-PR. > Like I said, it may depend on the context.... the benefits of STV-PR vary with the interest level of the voters in the election. > "Elections are for electors" - or at least, they should be - and to > change that balance in favour of the voters should be one of > the key objectives of any reform of a voting system. > If voters can help elect a 3rd party more easily then it doesn't matter if there's a stronger role for party hierarchy in the determination of their party's candidate. > > > > > JG: 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". > > > > > > dlw: Undoubtedly, and this is what made the AV referendum > > possible, no doubt. > > The reform of the voting system for local government in Scotland in 2007 > had absolutely nothing to do with the 2011 UK referendum on > AV (= IRV, not "approval voting"). THE problem with the AV referendum was > that no serious reformer wanted AV. Some party > politicians wanted AV, but far more party politicians (especially > Conservatives) were opposed to any reform at all. The Liberal > Democrats (whose party policy is for STV-PR) decided that a referendum on > AV was the best they could extract from the Conservatives > in the negotiations to form the coalition government. The negotiating > teams were under a great deal of pressure and wanted to > achieve an agreement before the UK financial markets opened on the Monday > morning after the Thursday election. > dlw: All that is true, but it does not change my point that election reform got on the ballot in large part because the use of quasi-PR in "more local" elections helped the LibDems to continue to rival the two biggest parties. When third parties can gain foot-holds, there's inevitably going to be pressure away from FPTP. dlw > > James Gilmour > >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
