I changed the title of this thread because the previous title lost its
relevance.
My reply starts about one screen down ...
On 2/24/2012 1:01 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
On 02/23/2012 11:24 PM, Richard Fobes wrote:
Kristofer Munsterhjelm asks: "... why do you propose rules that would
make it harder for third parties to grow?" ...
What I promote is VoteFair ranking. It includes a PR-related portion --
called VoteFair partial-proportional ranking -- that gives
representation to third parties that represent enough voters. This
aspect of VoteFair ranking specifically makes it easier (not harder) for
third parties to grow.
Yes, proportional representation would make it easier for third parties
to grow. On the other hand, in an earlier post, you suggested STV (which
is a PR method and thus one would expect to have the same purpose as the
VoteFair ranking) be used with two seats instead of three or five.
In a five-seat district, assuming Droop proportionality, any group of
more than a sixth of the voters can give their candidate a seat.
However, in a two-seat district, the group has to grow to exceed a third
of the voters to be sure of getting that seat; thus, smaller groups
could be splintered (either maliciously by gerrymandering or simply due
to bad luck), if there are few seats.
I'm picturing double-size districts and electing two representatives per
district. STV can use the ballot info to get that part right.
However, getting fair proportional results beyond two seats per district
(for any voting method) requires asking voters to indicate their
favorite political party.
That additional party-preference information then enables additional
proportional seats to be filled.
Using STV to fill more than two seats would lead to very unfair results
in some situations. Those situations don't exist now, but they can (and
I believe would) arise if the voting system changes (such as adopting STV).
Since the quota constitutes a sort of effective threshold, a two-seat
system would make it harder for a party to grow than would a five-seat
system, since the party would have to become a lot larger before
starting to win seats. Not as hard as in a single district system, of
course, but that's not much of a compliment.
You could compensate for the disproportionality on the local level with
proportionality on a greater level, like MMP does, but then you couldn't
use the "start small and locally" strategy because the compensation
mechanism would have to be present from the start.
Any election-method change can start at the (U.S.) state level. If that
works, it can be adopted by other states. If the results are better, it
would be hard to stop the change from happening at the national level.
Something similar happened with women getting the right to vote in the
U.S. Initially four western (less-important) states tried it. The
predicted disasters did not occur, so other states adopted it, and soon
thereafter Congress made the change. (Other nations, including Canada,
had already given women the right to vote before it was adopted here.)
(Interesting perspective: Voting started as a way to count how many men
would be fighting on each side of a fight if fighting broke out, and
that's why women initially were not counted.)
Currently the tiny state of Rhode Island is so frustrated by what goes
on in its state legislature that it is ripe for election-method reform.
That state is so small that it is more "local" than the Los Angeles area.
In other words, I agree that reform must start at the "local" level, but
I think that some state-level changes would fit your idea of "local".
(I don't know if there are cities that are ripe for proportional
improvements.)
I'll add that here in the state of Oregon there was a ballot measure
about adopting an "open primary", so there are opportunities to adopt
election-method change at the state level if it's the right change. (It
failed; I opposed that change for what I hope are obvious reasons.)
I continue to be impressed by your/Kristofer's questions and comments,
so I'll add that you have asked good questions here, which makes it
worth the time to reply.
Richard Fobes
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
