[EM] The Most Gain for the Smallest Change
Wiseman, Julian
julian.wiseman at csfb.com
Mon Apr 12 03:46:28 PDT 1999
Suggestion for you. I have designed an electoral system called PR-Squared
(description at http://www.jdawiseman.com), which is a somewhat proportional
single-member system. It was designed for the UK, but has met with some
approval in NZ. Perhaps it could be used to elect the lower house within a
state of the US.
Anyway, comment and opinion welcomed.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: donald at mich.com [SMTP:donald at mich.com]
> Sent: Sunday, April 11, 1999 12:41 PM
> To: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
> Subject: [EM] The Most Gain for the Smallest Change
>
> 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
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list