[EM] FWD - Reducing SNTV seats by more than one

[Donald E Davison]

  ----------- Forwarded Letter -----------
From: TODD Stephen
To: "'Donald E Davison'" <donald at mich.com>
Subject: Reducing SNTV seats by more than one
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2000 08:56:01

Dear Donald--

In your message to me last Monday (your time), you said, " As of now, I
do not see how the None of the Above option can be used to reduce the
number of seats more than one."

I replied with the following suggestion:  "For SNTV elections, there
could be an election rule that states that if the votes given for the
NOTA slot/option are equal to or greater than 2 Hare quotas, the number
of seats in the relevant district is to be reduced by 2 (until the next
election only, of course).  If  the votes given for the NOTA slot/option
are equal to or greater than 3 Hare quotas, the number of seats in the
relevant district is to be reduced by 3, and so on.  The candidates
elected are the remaining number that is required to be elected who have
the most votes, as per the example under--

No. to be elected = 5.  Hare quota = 24

      21,   16,   13,   8,   5,   4,   2,   1,   50 (NOTA)  --  Total
votes = 120

"The NOTA votes are greater than 2 Hare quotas, so the number of members
now required to be elected is reduced to 3.  The elected candidates are
the 3 candidates having the most votes.

"This rule would 'kick in' only when the number of NOTA votes is equal
to or greater than 2 Hare quotas.  In a 'normal' SNTV election to fill,
say, 5 seats, if the number of votes given for the NOTA option is one of
the five highest totals (even if the number of NOTA votes is less than 1
Hare quota), the elected candidates are the 4 candidates having the most
votes."

My question is, do you see this as a solution to the problem of how to
reduce the number of seats in SNTV elections by more than one?

Kind regards
Steve

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dear Steve,

     No, I do not see it as a solution, because in order to reduce each
seat we would need almost a quota of the voters to cast their only vote for
None of the Above. This is expecting too much in view of the very good
possibility that each of these voters is bound to have at least one
candidate that is most preferred.
     Voters are more positive than negative. They would rather vote for a
preferred candidate than vote for None of the Above.

     Consider the case of only five candidates to fill five seats. If we
ask two quotas of voters to reduce the seats that will give more of a
choice, but for who? Not for these voters, the other voters will be the
ones that decide which of the candidates will gain the three remaining
seats.

     I prefer that all voters have a say in the reducing of the seats, but
I also prefer that all voters have a choice of candidates. Any system must
provide both.

Regards, Donald Davison

   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
   |                         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                               |
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

      A   M O R E   D I R E C T   D E M O C R A C Y   W E B   S I T E
              A Source of Study Material for Political Change
                A More Direct Democracy is a New Democracy
                        http://www.mich.com/~donald
      - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -