[EM] Proportionality in perspective

[Bart Ingles]

Blake Cretney wrote:
> 
> 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


I don't see how these problems are exclusive to locality, vs. any other
grouping used as a basis for representation (including ethnic minority
and even party membership).  It's just part of the nature of
representation that a representative should try to get the best deal
possible for his/her constituency.  Of course representatives have a
dual responsibility, the other half of which is to represent society as
a whole (as is spelled out in the oath of office for U.S. politicians).

I think all of this would be true even if the constituency were
self-selecting, as in  districtless STV.

Bart Ingles