[EM] Cretney's compromise method

[Donald E. Davison]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11-16-00
Dear Blake Cretney and the EM list,

     It is possible to divide the seats according to the party quotas and
it is also possible to divide the seats according to the quotas of votes
cast in each district.
     But, the two divisions are not the same. How are you going to decide
which party is to receive the seats in a district?

     Suppose a district is assigned three seats because three quotas of
votes were cast in the district. Suppose also there are ten candidates and
eight parties in the district, with the leading candidate having only a
half a quota of votes. If you give the three seats to the three leading
candidates this will not maintain the party proportionality of the entire
election.

Donald Davison

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10-25-00
>Recently, I proposed, as a kind of compromise method the following:
>
>Voters vote for a single candidate, but each district elects 3
>members.  Number of seats for each party is determined by total
>national party support.  These seats are then distributed to each
>district based on local support (using a formula).  Then within a
>party and district, the candidates with the most votes are elected in
>order of number of votes.
>
>The method is simple for the voter, and allows votes for candidates
>and geographic representation.  Districts are larger than FPP, but
>smaller than STV.  The details are somewhat complicated, but not so
>much as STV.  You aren't able to vote for a candidate independently
>of a party vote (except for independents), but on the other hand the
>voters do decide which candidates of a party get elected.
>
>---
>Blake Cretney