STV-Proxy? (was RE: Two fairer(?) variations of STV)
seppley at alumni.caltech.edu
Thu Feb 20 19:07:38 PST 1997
> Thus, I suggest having the candidate with the lowest number of
> first choice votes lose and having the votes transferred to the
> next person on each ballot. Repeat until N candidates remain who
> would be elected. Each winner would have a voting power in the
> legislative body equal to the final number of votes received.
This variation of Proxy PR is attractive, if there's a good reason
to limit the body to a specific N seats. (With the rise of the
internet, making telecommuting virtual legislatures possible, a
fixed N is suspect.)
One of the traits of Proxy PR which may not have been mentioned is
that what most of the proxies would lack in weight, they'd partially
make up for in numbers. If 10% of the proxies have 51% of the weight,
the other 90% will have loud voices which will be hard for the media
to ignore, misrepresent, and marginalize.
But a question: would it be a good idea to cap the weight a single
proxy might wield, in order to distribute power (i.e., checks and
balances)? Without a cap, an extremely popular candidate, possibly
a demagogue, might win an extraordinary amount of legislative power.
Votes in excess of the cap would be transferred (fractionally,
randomly, whatever) to other candidates as in STV.
If capping is a good idea, what would be a good %?
---Steve (Steve Eppley seppley at alumni.caltech.edu)
More information about the Election-Methods