[EM] The Most Gain for the Smallest Change

[Donald E Davison]

Greetings Election Methods list,                   April 11 1999

     The question I would like to put to you is: "What is the smallest
change that will yield the most improvement in an election method - for the
size of the change?

     My answer to this question is for us to change the Single Member
District method to a Two Member District method. The voter would still have
only one vote, but the top two candidates would be elected, still using
Plurality. The improvements will be as follows:

     1) More members elected on merit
     2) More proportionality for gender
     3) More proportionality for the two major parties in a district
     4) More proportionality for the two major ethnic or race groups in a
district

     1) You should be able to support the two seat method purely from a
merit standpoint. Consider the real possibility of a single seat district
having only below average candidates running. A below average member is
going to be elected - there is nothing the voters can do about that
happening.
     Suppose an adjacent district has two or more above average candidates
running. Good for that district, but only one is going to become a member.
     Now, when we combine these two districts we allow the voters the
ability to elect two above average members. An improvement in the number of
elected "Members of Merit" by one hundred percent. You should like that,
but it gets better. This same condition can exist with other pairs of
districts. We shall gain more "Members of Merit" in the House.
     The larger the district, the more choices the voters will have, the
more members will be elect by merit.

     2) It is mathematically impossible for both genders to be elected in a
Single Member District. It is the method, not the voters that cause a low
number of women to be elected to Congress - eleven percent. Compare this
number to the percentages we get in Plurality-at-Large elections in which
the number can reach fifty percent for either gender. I am not advocating
the Plurality-at-Large method, but this does show that the voters are
willing to vote for both genders, which means there must be candidates of
merit existing in both genders.

     In a Two Member District, each gender would be able to elect their own
gender. Each gender should have the freedom to elect or not to elect
candidates of their own gender. If both genders had above average qualified
candidates running, then we could expect one of each gender would be
elected. On the other hand, if one gender only had below average candidates
running, I would expect that a member of that gender would not be elected.
Both genders need to have the power to elect their own gender, but I feel
they will still consider the merits of all candidates and if merit is not
there in the candidates of their gender, enough voters will vote for the
other gender to elect the candidate with the highest merit. They will still
consider merit, even if it is not their gender.
     Anyway, any small district should have an even number of seats - the
door must be opened.

     3) The two seat district is also good for other reasons besides
gender. Most districts contain two major parties. The two seat district
would allow both parties to be represented.
     4) And, any district that contains large numbers of two races or two
ethnic groups would also benefit from the two seat district.

     The U.S. Senate can also be elected using Two Member Districts. We can
do this by having both senators in a state elected at the same time. This
turns a state into a Two Member District. Different states can elect their
senators in different years.

     When the proportionality of the districts is improved, then the
proportionality of the entire election area is improved. This small change
will give us a large measure of improvement.

     We do not need a higher math in order to gain a large measure of
improvement, but of course, there are additional changes that can be made
for additional improvement. Changes like the ranking of candidates for use
with Choice Run-Off(Alternative Vote) or Choice Voting(STV). And there is
MMP and my Plans Two and Three. Those can be topics for other discussions,
my point now is that in the public arena, which contains a reluctance to
change, the people may be willing to take the small step from one to two
while they refuse to change to STV with its fractional transfer and run-off
routines.
     A small change for a large measure of improvement is better than no change.

Regards,
Donald
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  ----------- Forwarded Letter ---------
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999,
From: Don Homuth
Subject: What Works/What Doesn't [in a political action plan]

     WORKS                                     DOESN'T
Personal Contact                             Mass Media
Friends, neighbors, colleagues               Strangers
Focus on community involvement               Focus on political philosophy
Repeated followup                            One-time shot
Understanding                                Preaching
Positive motivators                          Guilt
Removing roadblocks to voting                Demanding participation
Neutral or familiar environment              Public places
Low-key                                      High pressure
Non-campaign pitch                           Campaign pitch
Getting names for lists                      Handing out literature and forms

    It's not exhaustive, but this effort involves something more than
leafleting at a mall or streetcorner.  If folks see you only once, you
don't really exist and you aren't really seriously committed to the effort.

Don Homuth

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
 T H E   C O D E   O F   H O N O R   F O R   R E F O R M   A C T I V I S T S

     Any group of reform activists that are thinking about a petition drive
to place a proposal on the ballot are to present their proposal beforehand
to all other reform activists that they know of. The time for debate and
negative comments is before the petition stage. Once the group makes its
final proposal and enters the petition stage, the debates and negative
comments by all reform activists is to cease.
    At this time each activist is to make an honest evaluation. If the
initiative will improve government then each activist is to find it in his
heart to support the initiative, even if it is not exactly what the
activist would like.

   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
   |                         Q U O T A T I O N                         |
   |  "Democracy is a beautiful thing,                                 |
   |       except that part about letting just any old yokel vote."    |
   |                            - Age 10                               |
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

                            N E W S L E T T E R

                    Worldwide Direct Democracy Newsletter
                     Four Issues per Year by Postal Mail
             Cost per year: Czech Republic 200 Kc,  Europe 12 DM
                          Outside of Europe  $10

              Make check payable to: Account Number 13164-30-01
              Mail to:  (Polak Jiri,ded)
                        Ceska sporitelna, a.s.
                        Jugoslavska 19
                        Praha2,  Czech Republic
          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                         N E W    D E M O C R A C Y
              A Source of Study Material for Political Change

                        http://www.mich.com/~donald
          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -