[EM] Proportionality in perspective

[Blake Cretney]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2001 10:35:30 -0800
Bart Ingles <bartman at netgate.net> wrote:

> One reason I have never been overly impressed with the
argument that one
> multi-winner method is better than another merely because
it is more
> accurately proportional, is that this seems to imply that
other criteria
> (locality of representation, monotonicity, some form of
utility, etc.)
> are unimportant.  In particular I dislike the CVD's term
> "semi-proportional" as a pejorative applied to methods
such as
> cumulative voting (the other CV), in favor of more complex
methods.

One point you mention is "locality of representation." 
Leaving aside the issues of proportionality, and list vs.
individual systems, I would argue that locality of
representation is actually a bad thing, and it certainly
doesn't make sense to compromise some other standard in
pursuit of it.

You may have some justification for locality.  I can't
recall ever having read someone directly defend the
principle.  People usually just assume that it is a good
thing.  However, on the surface it isn't obvious why we
should be representing people on the basis of geography.

For example, I think that if I argued there should be
different representatives on the basis of employment, for
example that computer programmers should have
representatives in the legislature chosen specifically by
them, few people would see this as desirable.  Employment
seems like an arbitrary division.  Moreover, by creating
this arbitrary division, we may encourage a representative
body where each member tries to improve benefits for his or
her employment group.

But the very same problems exist with geography.  It's just
that because geography is traditional, it doesn't look
absurd.

This is particularly obvious in the United States. 
Representatives are seen as helping their own districts,
with the effect that the body as a whole is looked at with a
certain amount of contempt.  In countries, like Canada,
where there is strict party discipline, the same kind of
thing still goes on, it is just organized more by the Prime
Minister.

However, locality still acts to corrupt the system.  The
government gives extra largess to ridings (districts) with
cabinet ministers, so as to avoid the embarrassment of their
removal from the legislature.  Our Prime Minister has
recently been criticised for calling a bank to get a loan
for a friend in his riding.  Although this has been
criticized, the Parliamentary Ethics Counselor (I think
that's the title) argued there was no wrong doing.  After
all, he was just doing his job representing a constituent.  

Similarly, if the ridings of cabinet ministers get more than
back-benchers, and government ridings get more than
opposition ridings, this is just the effect of members
representing their ridings to the best of their ability.  I
can't see how the system can fail to be corrupt.

---
Blake Cretney