[EM] (JBH) you wrote on August Third:

[Donald Davison]

(JBH) you wrote on August Third:

"I went with odd numbers because Ireland amended their procedure to specify
odd numbers, I presume they had a reason."

Donald here:  Maybe the reason was so that the one party could gerrymander
the districts with more ease.  In that way this party could gain a false
majority and govern - we must have a governing party, do we not.

(JBH) "I suppose it was to avoid ties between two major parties. If you had
a lot of four-seat districts and two leading parties you could get a
two-party legislature permanently deadlocked."

Donald:  I see no problem with ties.  For one thing, ties should be rare,
but if there were a tie, that is still not a problem, it is a standoff, the
measure does not pass, simple as that.  Lawmakers need to learn to realize
that there are other factions in the jurisdiction and that everyone needs
to work together to provide the best government for the people of the
jurisdiction..

There is nothing wrong with having an even numbered legislature.  The
smallest majority will be fifty percent plus one, that's a common majority.
Myself, I would like to see a larger majority requirement, even as high as
two-thirds, but that's me.

Anyway, if you must have an odd number legislature, still have even number
districts, but then have one additional seat go to the runner-up candidate
with the highest number of votes.  This is acceptable because in some of
the districts, there will be runner-ups with more votes than some winners
in other districts.  That's one of the flaws of current district elections
(including single-seat districts).

(JBH)  "Or are you saying the winners of the sub-districts would be
determined by the math of the greater district? I'm interested in your
idea, but not clear what you are saying."

Donald:  Yes, that's what I am saying, but you do need some more details.

An example of `Districts Within Districts' using Preference Voting/STV,
works as follows:

  * Divide a jurisdiction into a number of districts.  The number should be
less than one-half the number of seats (less can include one-forth).  No
need to make the districts exactly the same because we will be using the
same quota for every elected seat.
  * Candidates can only run in one district (this could be changed to allow
candidates to also run in all surrounding districts).
  * Voters can only rank the candidates that are running in their district,
but they can rank any party that has at least one candidate running in the
entire jurisdiction.
  * The voter is allowed to rank candidates and/or parties in any mix.
Ranking the parties is a must because this is what links the
proportionality of the districts to the proportionality of the entire
jurisdiction.
  * Ballots from all the districts are combined together to make one big
election.
  * The method for this example is Preference Voting/STV.
  * The quota is Hare because the averaging of the party votes by the Droop
quota is to be replaced by the averaging of the votes by my elimination
rule.  It is necessary to use my rule because the math of working the
mixture of candidate and party choices is unworkable without my rule.  The
rule is: `The candidate to be eliminated shall be the lowest candidate of
the party with the lowest average votes per candidate.'
  * There will be little if any surplus votes to transfer.  This is because
a percentage of the voters will rank only parties and not rank any
candidates.  Less votes on the candidates means less possible surplus
votes.
  * After the transfer of any surplus votes, the average votes per
candidate is computed for every party.  The total votes used to find this
average for each party include the party votes plus the votes of each
candidate of the same party.
  * The lowest candidate is eliminated of the party with the lowest average
votes per candidate.
  * The votes of this candidate are transferred to the next choices (some
of which may cross party lines).
  * New average votes per candidate are calculated for any party that had
any change in total votes or number of remaining candidates.
  * The next lowest candidate is eliminated of the party with the current
lowest average votes per candidate.
  * This routine of eliminating candidates continues until the number of
remaining candidates equals the number of total seats.
  * Those remaining candidates are the winners - the election is over.


Open Party List could also be used as a method, but it will give the voters
less choice if the voters were not allowed to cross party lines when
ranking candidates.

Donald,