[EM] Accountability under.. ] The MMPP MMP method

[David Catchpole]

Probably wouldn't have desired effect as preferences would still flow from
party voters outside an electorate. Picture it- if a candidate A fails to
win in an electorate but is voted first by all party voters, A will still
be elected amongst the "top-ups."

On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Craig Carey wrote:

> At 14:39 30.11.99 , DEMOREP1 at aol.com wrote:
> >D- The below was put on the Canada Votes email list 
> >(canada-votes at egroups.com) on Nov. 29, 1999 by Mr. Frampton (not me).
> >------
> ...
> >This shows a major flaw of MMP -- and any other mixture of constituency and
> >list systems.  MPs defeated at the constituency level can -- and very often
> >do -- get right back in by winning a List seat.  This violates the basic
> >principle of representative government my effectively preventing the voters
> >from removing an MP who has lost their confidence.
> >
> >Bill Frampton, V.P.
> >Freedom Party of Ontario
> >http://www.freedomparty.org/
> >billfr at iosphere.net
> 
> 
> 
>               Preferential voting applied to party lists
> 
> 
> Suppose that MMP were modified so that the "party vote" was not a single
>  tick (or cross), but instead voters were given the full party list and
>  were allowed to indicate preferences (1,2,3,...) for party list
>  candidates.
> 
> They could carry to the voting booth, sticky stickers containing their
>  number, and once in the voting booth, they could pick the party list
>  paper of the party that they would give their party vote for. They would
>  apply the sticker to the paper, and also write in the numbers 2, 3,
>  and so on beside the party candidates. The paper would have been printed
>  to show that the first preference was for the party leader.
> 
> For the country, and for each party, all the voters' preferential party
>  votes would be added to a somewhat comparably weighted collection of votes
>  supplied by the party. Then STV or any better preferential voting system
>  would be used to pick the number of list MPs. The seats in the
>  parliamentary chamber would, as in MMP, be filled in proportion to the
>  ratios of the (adjusted) party votes.
> 
> This is a modified Mixed Member Proportional scheme, which I'll named the
>  Mixed Member Preferential Proportional method, MMPP (is that taken?).
> 
> (Perhaps the Freedom Party of Ontario will explain whether MMP is surely
>  flawed by lacking a veto when one of its variants seems to be not flawed
>  in that way? [different name?].)
> 
> (For interest, how would politicians argue that a method like this be
>  rejected?.)
> 
> 
>                                 --------
> I note that the page here:
> 
>    http://worldpolicy.org/americas/democracy/table-pr.html
> 
> records the method of election of unicameral legislature or lower houses of
>  bicameral legislatures as being "mixed member" "proportional" for only,
>  and all of, these countries:
> 
>    Bolivia
>    Germany
>    Hungary
>    Italy
>    Mexico
>    New Zealand   (is MMP)
>    Venezuela.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Craig Carey, Auckland, New Zealand, 30 November 1999
> 
> 

-------------------------------------------
Nothing is foolproof given a talented fool.