[EM] Some more comments on PR, STV, and MMP for EM

[Donald E Davison]

Greetings list members,                         12/14/99

     On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Dana Gourley wrote:
"Hello Donald
     I don't know how most people on this list feel, but I feel PR is a
means to an end (ie. to empower the voters)."

Dear Dana Gourley,
     PR is a necessary improvement in election reform, but it will not
empower the voters.
     If Canada gained PR tomorrow, most of the current members will still
be in office, and the new members will slowly become as corrupt as the
current members.
     Shelia Copps will still have her seat and there will still be issues
that need to be addressed. But, with PR, all groups will be invited to sit
at the table to try to resolve these issues.
     If you still feel the voters should be empowered, you will need to
look to the initiative. ( b. The right and procedure by which citizens can
propose a law by petition and ensure its submission to the electorate.)
    The initiative is one of the principles of the Direct Democracy movement.

Dana: So If something less than perfect PR does that [empower the voters] I
wouldn't turn up my nose to it.

Donald: Yes, you are correct to take any improvement, even if it does not
give you everything you want.

Dana: I don't understand what cross party voting means, or what the problem
it causes is.

Donald: In MMP, the voter has two votes - one for a district candidate, and
one for a national party (any party in any district).
     Large groups of voters can and do vote for a candidate of one party
with their district vote and then vote for a different party with their
party vote. This is a form of cross party voting.
     Now, under Top-Up rules, a party is supposed to have enough party
votes to cover the party members elected in the districts before any list
members can be elected. But, it is possible that a party can come up short
of votes to cover district members, because of this cross party voting.
     The policy is to allow all members elected in districts to take their
seats, but this can create extra seats. The groups are getting better at
creating extra seats. In the 1996 German MMP election there were 13 extra
seats created. If these extra seats are in proportion to the popular vote,
then there is no change in the proportionality of the election. If not, the
proportionality changes.
     It is not hard to design a plan to create an extra seat.
     Suppose there is a member who has a safe district. This member decides
to become an `independent' candidate for the next election. He still wins
in the district because the people still vote for him, but the people give
their party votes to his `Former Party'. This one quota of voters has
elected two members - one in the district and one via the party list. The
party receives the same number of popular votes, therefore the party elects
the same number of members. But, the party gains the support of an extra
vote, because this so called `independent' will still be supporting his
`former party'.

     Another form of cross party voting occurs in Open primary elections.
     If the candidate of one party is already decided, then many voters of
that party will cross over and vote in the primary for the weakest
candidate of the other party, in the hopes that this weak candidate will
win his primary and face their candidate in the general election. This
falls in the area of `Dirty Tricks'.

Dana: What is Droop Quota?

Donald: The Droop Quota is the result of the following equation:

     Droop Quota equals (Total Votes) / (seats + 1) + 1

     If you think about this equation, you should realize that this quota
is the lowest amount of votes a candidate can receive and still be insured
of being elected. Any lower number of votes has the possibility that some
other candidate may take the seat.
     The Droop Quota has been installed in most STV elections. What the STV
rule makers are saying is that every member is allowed to be elected by no
more than the lowest number of votes needed to be elected. Any more votes
than this are surplus votes, by defination.
     In reality the Droop favors the largest groups, because it creates
more surplus votes to be transferred to lower choice candidates of the same
group. The largest groups will be receiving most of these created surplus
votes, which will be used to support other candidates of the same parties.
     The largest parties gain in representation, but when someone gains,
someone else must lose. There will be a near quota of votes left over.
These voters are the losers, because their votes are disqualified - wasted.
This inturn makes the proportionality of the elected members different from
the popular vote proportionality.

Dana: Can you explain mixing STV and list, and how that would fix the party
list? How does it solve the District-Member link that you identified?

Donald: Suppose we have an election in which the voters rank the candidates
and we use the routine of STV on these ballots, but not to elect any
members. The use of the STV routine is for the purpose of ranking the
candidates on their party lists. The members are elected via Party List.
The first choices on the ballots will give us the popular vote
proportionality.
     This mix of STV and list can be used in an election divided into small
districts, as small as two quotas of voters (2 X Total Voters / total
seats).
     This should elect at least one member per small district, thereby
providing a District-Member Link.

     The big objection to party list is `Closed Party List". The candidates
and their order on the list are decided by the leaders of each party in
`closed' meetings.
     By having all the candidates ranked by the voters in an `open'
election to determine the order on the party list, means that the Party
List is `Open" to the voters, Hence, Open Party List, a more democratic way
to order the party list.

Dana: Gotta say your slogans need some work, they wouldn't fit on a placard
:-)  How about: "Every vote should count"  or  "Make sure a majority really
means a majority of the votes"

Donald: Maybe the word slogan was not a good choice of words. Goal would be
a better word.
     I could have a set of `Goals of Just Representation' - as follows:

     * Each one percent of the voters should be able to elect one member
per 100 seats.
     * Each vote should end up on one or another of the elected members.
     * Each member should be elected by about the same number of votes.

     We may never reach these goals exactly, but we should try to come as
close as possible.

Regards, Donald,

   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
   |                         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: Mr. Bohuslav Binka
              Mail to:  Mr. Bohuslav Binka
                        Bellova 15
                        Brno 623 00
                        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
          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -