[EM] Craig Layton and Districts within Districts

[Donald E. Davison]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11-09-00
Dear Craig Layton,

You wrote: >I don't see the justification for this[Districts Within Districts].

     The justification is that now we have a better system than District
Hare Clarke or MMP.

     Districts Within Districts(DWD) is better than District Hare
Clarke(STV) because DWD gives the people their Member-Links. We must
realize that enough constituents want their Member-Link, enough to stop any
improvement that may take them away from it. We can argue that the
constituents should pick the member that is the closest or to pick any
member in the district, but the argument will not carry the day.

     People accepted MMP because it merely added Party List to their
existing Member-Link. People will accept DWD because it merely adds
District Hare Voting to their existing Member-Link.
     I consider MMP to be the best method currently being used for large
partisan elections. It is the additon of Party List that gives MMP its good
proportionality, as good as that of any election in a Single Area.
     Having said that, I also see the flaws in MMP.
     One: The voter does not select the candidates nor the order of the
Party List.
     Two: While MMP gives very good proportionality, that proportionality
is only for the political parties.
     Three: The two votes per person in MMP causes cross party voting,
which distorts the results.

     Just Proportionality takes place when a percentage of the voters are
able to elect the same percentage of members. One percent of the voters
should be able to elect one percent of the members, which is one member per
100 House members.
     No district election method will give us that kind of proportionality.
Not my ten seat Greater District nor your seven seats will give Just
Proportionality. We must accept a trade off. And, that is what I am doing.
I am willing to trade off the very good proportionality of Party List for
qualities of Hare Voting, like allowing voters to vote for candidates and
to rank these candidates and without regard to party, all at the same time
- people voting for people.

     District Hare Clarke has proportionality, but it does not have a
Member-Link.
     MMP has a Member-Link but it has flaws.
     Districts Within Districts has a Member-Link plus the proportionality
of Hare Clarke, but without the flaws of MMP.

Thank you for writing,
Donald Davison