Jeanne Massey argued, "IRV and PR are complementary, not at odds with each other."
I'm sorry, you're going to have to explain this to me further because I just didn't understand your explanation. It seems to me that the two are about as conflicting as it's possible to get.
In IRV you vote for a person (plus several other persons in 2nd, 3rd, etc. place). With PV you vote for a party (you're voting for a party list with knowledge of who is on that party list and the order in which the people are listed).
In IRV you vote for multiple people and which of those votes counts depends on how many other votes whoever you happened to vote for happened to get in the election. In PV you vote for ONE political party and that vote always counts. (With the limited exception of when you vote for a party whose cumulative support is so low that it almost doesn't register at all.)
IRV is apparently intended to produce a single winner with a majority of the vote. PV, with a single vote, produces multiple winners with the total elected being always proportional to the relative support for each political party.
Jeanne also suggested that multiple-member districts could be organized along the lines of "party, geography, specific issue, race, etc." Again, my uptake is pretty slow today but if that means what I think it means, I'd be against districts organized on anything but geography.
Jeanne also said that IRV is a more minor change to the existing system than PV. On that she is absolutely right. That's why I'm afraid that it's more difficult for people to wrap their minds around and decide that it really is a good idea.
David Weinlick asked, "doesn't this [PV with a party-list system] directly conflict with your recently suggested party-list system? Is one DFLer as good as any other?"
On that, I'd answer a wishy-washy "yes and no." It is true that with PV that it would end the days of the DFL control of the Minneapolis City Council by 100%. However, it's my belief that the DFLers who remain (and, I believe, still control the City Council) would be more cohesive in their governmental philosophy. And, further, that more cohesion on party philosophy would yield better government and, in turn, even stronger DFL control. So my feeling is that with PV it would yield better DFLers on the City Council and I'll take quality over quantity any day of the week (provided the DFL is at least in control). And, for what it's worth, I think that it would also yield more cohesive Republican philosophy by Republicans on the City Council, Green philosophy by Greens on the City Council, etc. And I think that having more cohesive opposition makes for a better DFL and one that's more awake too.
David also asks: "In the current mayoral race, for example, how would a party-list system work?"
The answer is that it would NOT work for any solitary office such as mayor, governor, or president. For those offices, basically the executive offices that need just one person in the job, would be elected exactly the same way they are now. (Or, at least, PV does not work for a single-occupant office.)
David also says: "My concern with the party-list system is that it doesn't allow voters to distinguish between individual candidates, who often represent very different aspects of a particular party."
The answer here is that PV with party lists are intended to cut-down on party people that are really poles apart in their governmental philosophies. Basically, it would probably cut-out Democrats who are basically crypto-Republicans. I view that as a benefit and not a problem. For the voter, it would basically mean that they could count on the party label really meaning something. It would also mean that reading the party platform as the key document to read for any election. (Instead of being, as it is now, the most irrelevant document in any campaign.)
What would probably happen, frankly, is the initially possibility of some of the major parties having splinters splitting off to start new parties. Thus, you might wind up with a party calling itself the "New DFL" or the "Pro-Life DFL." Despite the initial splintering effect, those kinds of parties would disappear when there extremely limited platforms fail to attract wide support. The result would be that the splinters would eventually return because they just don't have the broad appeal to sustain themselves.
It is also probable that the major parties would probably oppose PV -- at least until they catch on that quality and not quantity of victorious candidates is what matters. Their knee-jerk reaction would probably come from those already in office and see that PV with a party list might endanger their continuance in office.
David next proposes a hypothetical IRV election and shows how the results would shift as 2nd and 3rd choices are arithmetically moved around. His hypothetical starts with these results:
Republican -- 28% Democrat -- 26% Green -- 24% Independence -- 22%
The answer is that there is no second round of ballot counting with arithmetic shifts and 3rd round counting with more shifts. There would be no shifts at all. Using my
example of a Minneapolis City Council of 25, these would be the results.
Republican -- 7 council members elected Democrat -- 7 council members elected Green -- 6 council members elected Independence -- 5 council members elected
(For the purpose of that example, I broke the "remaining largest fraction," somehow, in favor of the Democrat.)
I would suggest that those results make more sense than multiple rounds of arithmetic moves of the votes for the Green and Independence parties toward the Republican candidate. I'd suggest that if you're a Green or an Independence Party member, they make more sense to. It's better to have at least some of your people in office than to perpetually have to settle (and vote for) someone of another party to represent you.
Of course, I think that in your example that the DFL would come out with 60% or better of the vote and wind up with 60% or better of the council seats. And, even if I lived in a community where the Republicans control by that margin (thank the Lord for small favors) I'd rather have a strong Democrat making the case that the Republicans were nuts. That's because I think that the odds are better of his or her being able to convince people that the Republicans really are nuts. (Non neo-con Republicans excepted, of course.)
I think that the ultimate appeal of PV over IRV is that with PV there will be a lot more people attracted to participate in elections and voting. With IRV, you're trying to attract them by saying that "One of your votes is going to count (even though it may never be your 1st place vote)." But, the appeal of PV is stronger because you can argue that "Your vote always counts and there are no 'ifs,' 'ands,' or 'buts' at all."
Steve Cross Prospect Park
REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
