[EM] Districts (was: Proportionality in perspective)

[Bart Ingles]

Blake Cretney wrote:
> 
> I reply to Craig Layton later on.
> 
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 15:47:20 -0800
> Bart Ingles <bartman at netgate.net> wrote (referring to the arguments I
> previously made)
> 
> > 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).
> 
[BC]
> Well, I certainly wouldn't recommend representation on the basis of
> ethnicity.  That would be even worse.
> 
> I'm not aware of any country that uses "party membership."  That would
> suggest that non-party members wouldn't even get a vote (or would vote
> in some "independent" grouping).

[BI]
What about list-based and MMP systems?  They seem to make things more
difficult if the voter is not aligned or not content to accept a party
slate.

> 
> > 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).
> 
> It's a trivial point, but I don't see anything in the oath office
> about representing society as a whole.  Not that I'm claiming that it
> should, or that this would solve the problem.

You're right, I took "defending the Constitution", etc. to mean the same
thing, but of course that's not quite accurate.


> > I think all of this would be true even if the constituency were
> > self-selecting, as in  districtless STV.
> 
> Many of my points would clearly not apply in a districtless system.
> For example, Cabinet Ministers would have no districts to spend extra
> money in.
> 
> However, it is true that even in a districtless system, candidates
> have reason to help those who support them.  In reality, by helping
> their ideology, candidates will likely believe they are helping
> society as a whole, because this is what every ideology claims.
> 
> However, I don't agree with you that that is equivalent to a system
> where every member tries to get clauses in each bill to help his
> district, or where the executive attempts to locate benefits on the
> basis of strategy.

I still don't see much difference.  In a districtless system, those who
support a candidate are not necessarily those who share the same
ideology.  At least in the U.S., many contributors (in both district and
executive elections) actually support both sides hoping to gain
access/recognition regardless of who wins.