Comments on the Colorado MMP Initiative

[New Democracy]

Dear Gary,

     What is good about this initiative is that it is being done. The
people should vote for it because it will be an improvement. Having said
that, I do have some comments.

     I realize that it is too late to expect any changes to the proposed
1998 initiative, but I would like to comment in expectation of future
initiatives - anywhere in the world.

Section 2. (3) Single-Seat Districts:

     I expected that the initiative would have single-seat districts. There
seems to be a mind set among the people who advocate MMP, that the system
must have single-seat districts. I would like to see multi-seat districts
used - even if it is only a two seat district. Two seats will give the
people more choice and improve the party proportionality in each district.

Section 2. (6) Thresholds:

     What is good about your threshold is that it is small, only one seat -
one of sixty-five, 1.54% (New Zeland uses 5%). But your threshold is still
a threshold.

     I would like to suggest that there should not be a threshold.

     I would further suggest that the way to handle the parties that have
less than a whole seat is to regard what they do have as being a remainder
and that we are to work their remainders with the remainders of the other
parties.

     The policy of eliminating the votes of these parties from further
consideration is not "the right and proper thing to do". You have taken
some of the people and you have disqualfied their votes. You are doing the
same as if you stopped these people from voting in the election. A
threshold is paying tribute to the larger parties - it forces people to
vote for the larger parties if they want to be sure that their vote is to
be included. The people that do dare to vote for a small party face the
possibility of their vote being wasted. This is intimidation of the people.

     Some say that we must have losers in any election. That is not true in
the case of an election of a lawmaking body - which can have all the voters
being on the winning side if we use a good PR method with the correct
design features. Having a threshold is not a good design feature. The point
of PR is to make winners of all the voters. We should not do anything to
turn some of them into losers.

     Markus Schulze of Germany wrote: "I think, that the aim of
proportional representation is to minimize the number of the wasted votes."
I call this the Markus Schulze Rule. A threshold does not obey the Markus
Schulze Rule.

     Allow me to explain this threshold thing in language that you may
understand. Suppose your party, the Green Party, were to have a candidate
running in a future MMP election in Colorado. Suppose your candidate
received less than a full seat - he only received 0.995 of a seat.

     Under my suggestions, your candidate will be elected because he has a
high remainder and inturn all the Green Party voters will be represented.

     But, under the policy of your initiative, your candidate will be
eliminated and the votes of all the members of the Green Party will be
wasted - not used - no effect in the election - no representation for your
party.

     It is in your best interest to treat all candidates and all the voters
with equality. Besides it is "the right and proper thing to do".

Section2. (10) The Personal Ballot:

     I fail to understand how the personal ballots in your initiative can
be of much value to the candidates - nor to the voters. I can only detect
one rare set of conditions under which these personal ballots might help -
and then only for one candidate on a party list.

     I approve of the personal ballot, but the ballots would have more
value if the tally of them would be used to determine the order of the
candidates on the party lists. Then you would have an Open Party List - an
improvement.

Section 4. Qualifications of Members:

     Twenty-five years of age is too young. The maturity and experience of
life is not in the person yet. I suggest at least forty-five years of age -
a time when children are raised and careers are established. We the voters
have the right to ask of a candidate: "What have you been doing the last
twenty years?" Going to Grade School is not enough of an answer. The best
way to know if a candidate may do something stupid after he is elected is
to look and see if he has done anything stupid as an adult. We need about
thirty years of adulthood in a candidate in order for us to tell.

Regards,
Don



     \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
     ///                 N E W    D E M O C R A C Y                ///
     \\\ Home of Citizen's Democracy   http://www.mich.com/~donald \\\
     /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////