[EM] 12/22/02 - Markus Schulze Wrote and Wrote again:

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Donald,

you wrote (22 Dec 2002):
> I agree with your selection of IRV being the best single-seat method.

I wrote that IRV is the best single-winner method "in use today at the
national level". However, compared to Tideman's Ranked Pairs method or
my beatpath method I consider IRV inferior.

You wrote (22 Dec 2002):
> Years ago you wrote:  "I think, that the aim of proportional representation
> is to minimize the number of the wasted votes."
>
> On Dec 17, 2002 you wrote: "In my opinion, the best multi-winner method in
> use today is Northern Ireland's fractional version of proportional
> representation by the single transferable vote."     Markus Schulze
>
> Donald here,  These two quotes by you are in conflict.  I will agree with
> you on your first quote, but Northern Ireland's method does not meet your
> aim of PR, for it has a large amount of wasted votes.
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but if I remember correctly, Northern Ireland's
> multi-winner method is a district STV method, which means that because of
> the use of the Droop quota in each district there will be a quota of wasted
> votes in each district which can add up to a total of twenty percent wasted
> votes for the entire jurisdiction.  If the election method had no districts
> then there would only be one quota of votes wasted.  As a district method,
> STV has too many wasted votes, but this is not the only problem with
> district STV,

The aim of proportional representation is to minimize the number of wasted
votes. However, proportionality is not the only criterion for a good multi-
winner method. I prefer PR-STV to PR-PL because STV makes it possible for
independent candidates to get elected. I consider this aspect important
because I believe that the power of the party machines depends mainly on
the chances of the candidates to get elected without the support or even
against the will of their party.

You wrote (22 Dec 2002):
> The only district method in use today that does have this linkage is top-up
> Mixed Member Proportional Representation (MMP or MMPR).  In a MMP election,
> ten percent of the entire jurisdiction will be able to elect ten percent of
> the members.  MMP is able to give as good proportionality as single area
> STV or Party List, but MMP also gives the voters a closer member-link
> because of the small districts.
>
> Now, I will say that MMP does have a few flaws, but nothing that cannot be
> corrected if a jurisdiction is willing to change a few rules of MMP, but
> in spite of these few flaws, MMP is still the best district method in use
> today and is also the best multi-seat method if the close member-link is
> important to the people of a jurisdiction.

Germany uses MMP and in Germany there isn't any link between the
voters and their MPs.

I wrote (8 Oct 1999):
> In the last elections (27 Sep 1998) to the German Bundestag,
> something happened that demonstrated the direct link between
> the voters and their MPs: One poll station accidently used
> ballots that had been printed for a different constituency
> so that wrong candidates were listed on these ballots.
> The poll station opened at 8.00 a.m. and this accident
> was discovered by a voter at 1:15 p.m.. Until then, already
> 277 voters had voted without even noticing that wrong
> ballots were being used.

[In Germany, the party label is printed next to the according
candidate.]

Markus Schulze

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em