Reply to remarks on STV vs MMP

[New Democracy]

Dear List members,

A person wrote:
>I have made the general observation that if you do not like the fact parties
>control the electoral process and to a great extent the democratic
>process, >then you endorse STV. If you think that parties are vehicles
>worth keeping >around then you endorse MMP.

Don: Sorry - your observation is not valid - you should rethink. You
have no right to push all of us people into two camps - into two pigeon
holes. I for one think that parties are vehicles worth keeping around but I
do not endorse MMP - not yet. I am standing in the doorway thinking about
what I see. I think that some design features would improve MMP. Allow me
to offer three.

One: Have no primary election nor party nominations. Have a law that allows
any member in good standing in a party to run as a candidate of that party.

Two: Combine every two districts so that there will be two seat for these
larger districts. The voters in most districts can be divided into two major
groups. This change would give the voters more choice and make the biggest
correction in proportional representation on the local level. When we have
only one seat per district the wasted votes can be as large as fifty
percent(less one vote). When we have two seats the wasted votes will be
reduced down to about ten percent - depending on how large the minor
parties are in the riding. Reducing wasted votes is a goal. Markus Schulze
of Germany wrote: "I think, that the aim of proportional representaion is
to minimize the number of the wasted votes."

Three: Use the Candidate List method to compute the ballots in the districts.
Candidate List will give the same results as STV when used in an election
of only two seats - but Candidate List does not need fractional transfer of
ballots.

>STV does not create as proportional results as MMP.

Don: I agree - but to be clear it must be pointed out that you are talking
about proportional results of only political parties.

>Of course, it is also better than MMP in that votes are never
>wasted. MMP systems with thresholds can potentially waste many votes.

Don: I agree again. This is why I am suggesting two seats per district.

>Ah, but if the voters demand that more women should be elected, parties will
>respond by nominating, listing more women.

Don: This statement of yours supports my contention that proportional
representation is to be controlled by the political parties when we use
MMP. We should find ways in which the voters can control more of the PR -
like when we use two seats per riding.


>Don, it is critical for all to know that STV and MMP are likely the only two PR
>systems that should be considered... there may be others, but I know not of
>them. I think it is important to debate the merits of the two systems, but I do
>not want to lose focus of the important task of preaching to the non-converted!

Don: I understand what you are saying here - we cannot merely sit beside
the road and debate while the world goes pass us - we must get up and get
into the mainstream. But consider this logic. If it is possible to improve
MMP and you do improve it, then you can preach to the non-converted that
the system you are asking them to accept is not the same as the German MMP
system - Your MMP is better. You will have a better sell with a better
product.

Don

Donald Eric Davison of New Democracy at http://www.mich.com/~donald

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -