On 7.6.2012, at 5.21, Michael Ossipoff wrote: > Sainte-Lague isn't the only PR formula that is unbiased with respect to > party-size, but it's the only unbiased formula that doesn't share the > avoidable errors of STV and Largest Remainder.
Largest Reminder has some paradoxes but I wouldn't call them errors. Usually those properties can also not be exploited as strategies. The possibly surprising seat allocations in the Alabama paradox can be said to be fair and not problematic. > Also, I like emphasis on party platforms instead of personalities and > hairdo, etc. > > But I recognize that many would like to vote for individuals, even in a PR > election. Of course that can be done in open list systems, such as those in > Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland. The best of both worlds: Optimal > proportionality and opportunity to support individual candidates. Some people support the idea of reducing the role and power of the parties to the minimum. They may like STV since in it the party stucture is not binding but just possible background information. You refer to party platforms as an alternative to electing representatives based on personalities and hairdo. I symphatize also that since it is also good if the political system is stable, simple to the voters and also binding to the elected representatives. In the party / grouping based approach regular voters will in some sense know better than what they will get than in a system that is based only on the smiling faces and smooth talk of the candidates. I think in an ideal system we need a good balance between these needs and different directions of interest - ability to influence on which individuals will be elected, and having a clear political map and directions available to the voters. Open lists typically have the problem that within the party there are no guarantees that different wings of the party will bet the correct proportional number of seats. The methods may approximate this to some extent, but we could do better too. It is for example possible to combine open lists and STV by allowing voters to rank candidates within the party list. (Abiliy to mix and rank candidates of different parties is lost, but this may not be a big problem.) One step more party/candidate oriented (but more informative approach to the voters) is to use candidate given preference orders. Yet another possibility is to use a tree structure to divide the party into smaller subgroups. Trees are very informative and already quite binding to the representatives. Some parties may find them even too explicit since they may emphasize fragmentation within the party and they may give the voters too much (from party leaders' point of view) power on what policy the representatives will drive during the next term (no chance to change opinion in line with what the party leaders say if one was e.g. the candidate of the pro-nuclear-power grouping). > I'd > thought that Finland had open list, but Juho says that they don't. Finland uses open lists. The seat number of each district is calculated before the election based on population and Largest Reminder. Within each district (of different size) the seats are allocated to the parties using D'Hondt. Within the parties candidates with highest number of votes will get the seats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_parliamentary_election,_2011 Juho
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
