Proposed MMP ballot initiative in Colorado

[Gary Swing]

On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, DEMOREP1 wrote:

> Having both single member district winners and add-on winners is not
> necessary.
> 
> Use just multi-member districts only.  There is no need for a reapportionment
> commission if each district has at least 5 members. Each district can be
> composed of one or more of the smallest political subdivisions or part of one
> political subdivision and be as square as possible (which means rectangular,
> in reality).

This is a fundamentally different concept than the initiative on file. The
choice of MMP is intended to preserve some relatively small, single-member
district representation while achieving partisan proportionality.

For the 1998 initiative cycle, it is too late to make substantial changes
to the proposed initiative. Only minor changes specifically in response to
the comments of the legislative council staff can be made at this point.
The basic parameters of a PR proposal can be revisited for the next
election cycle.

A reapportionment commission would still be needed unless all members were
elected at large. The formation of multi-member districts is still a
political decision. Counties wouldn't work as a basis for districts --
they range in population from 500 to 500,000. Many census tracts would
have to combined to form districts, hence a need for a formal
reapportionment process.

 > 
> Use equal nominating petitions in each district for ballot access (i.e. a
> percentage of the voters in each district at the last election).  

This doesn't need to be specified in the state constitution. A coalition
of third parties in our state has just succeeded in changing the ballot
access procedures for minor parties, and I think those provisions are
generally fair. Only minor changes in statutory provisions would be
necessary to accomodate party list nominations. The two major parties
control the legislature, so they can pretty much set their own rules.
Independent candidates are the one group most vulnerable to unfair ballot
access requirements, which is why the initiative establishes petitioning
requirements for independents. 
 
Having a formal party nomination process and pre-ordered lists makes
candidates accountable in some degree to their party organization and
platform. This is an important consideration for political
organizations. The option of voting for pre-ordered lists can also simply
PR voting for most citizens, so that they could vote simply for the party
of their choice, rather than familiarizing themselves with dozens of
individual candidates and ranking them in order of preference. 

> Each independent who gets votes equal to or greater than total district votes
> / district seats (TDV/DS) would be elected.
> 
> Each party that gets votes (i.e. all candidates of such party) equal to or
> greater than total votes in all districts /total seats in all districts
> (TV/TS) would elect one or more legislators.  (i.e. Hare quotas).
> 
> Transfer surplus votes repeatedly from the independent or party with the
> largest surplus.
> 
> The lowest independent or party not getting such minimums would repeatedly
> lose with the votes for a loser being transferred to a remaining candidate.
> 
> A party would get seats equal to 
> Total Seats x Total Party Votes / Total Votes (using highest remainders)   (TS
> x TPV/ TV)
> 
> The party winners would be the party's candidates getting the most votes in
> all districts.
> 
> I again object to having vacancies filled using the original election results.
> Strong incumbents and a few yahoo extremist idiots may run at the same time.
> If a strong incumbent dies, etc. then an idiot would fill the vacancy.  

An idiot nominated by the same party's process.

If you'd like to see a bunch of idiots at work, come observe our existing
state legislature for a day. :-}

Q: Does Colorado have an official state mineral?
A: No, but we have some real gems in the legislature.
 
> Thus, have a party vacancy be filled by the party and an independent vacancy
> be filled by the other independents or by the entire legislative body (or have
> the candidates give a list of candidates to replace themselves as candidates
> or incumbents if they die, etc.).
> 
> I again note the very simple proxy method of having district winners have a
> voting power equal to the number of votes they each receive-- no quotas, no
> surpluses, no fractions.

Top 65 House/35 Senate candidates get seated?

Gary