[EM] Markus Schulze Wrote and Wrote Again:

Markus Schulze markus.schulze at alumni.tu-berlin.de
Sun Jan 12 05:50:47 PST 2003

Dear Donald,

you wrote (12 Jan 2003):
> Dear Markus, you wrote:  "The aim of proportional representation is to
> minimize the number of wasted votes.  However, proportionality is not the
> only criterion for a good multi-winner method."  Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002,
> Donald here:  I will agree that proportionality is not the only criterion
> for a good multi-winner method.  An election method should be designed so
> that these other criterions are considered and included, but having said
> that, I also say that the acceptance of these other criterions should not
> be an excuse to depreciate party proportionality.  Proportionality does
> not need to go down in order for other criterions to be included.  Party
> proportionalty can and should be maintain at near 100%.

When you substitute the term "party proportionality" with "proportionality"
then I agree with everything you say.


You wrote (12 Jan 2003):
> Markus: "I prefer PR-STV because STV makes it posssible for independent
> candidates to get elected."
> Donald:  I am in favor of independent candidates being able to run in any
> election method and I feel they should be able to get on the ballot with
> the same ease as party candidates, but you must realize that an independent
> candidate has two strikes against him before the race begins.  He does not
> receive the money nor the leg work that a party candidate will receive, nor
> does he receive the automatic party votes that a party candidate will
> receive.
> This is because most voters will trust a party more than an independent
> candidate to represent them and while this representation will be via a
> party candidate, the party voters will expect the party to keep the party
> candidate's nose to the party line.  There is no party to keep an
> independent candidate in line.  You may be a idealist Markus, but most
> voters are realist.

I guess that the main reason why voters vote rather for party candidates
than for independent candidates is that the Banzhaf power index of a bloc
of N members of parliament is more than N times larger than the Banzhaf
power index of a single member of parliament.


You wrote (12 Jan 2003):
> Markus: "In the last elections (27 Sep 1998) to the German Bundestag,
> something happened that demonstrated the direct link between the voters and
> their MPs:  One poll station accidently used ballots that had been printed
> for a different constituency so that wrong candidates were listed on these
> ballots.  The poll station opened at 8:00 am and this accident was
> discovered by a voter at 1:15 pm.  Until then, already 277 voters had voted
> without even noticing that wrong ballots were being used."
> Donald:  You should accept this event as proof that most voters vote for
> party first, not the candidate.  Therefore, the better method of the future
> will be a method in which the voter is free to rank parties and/or
> candidates in any mix.

Your statement is very strange because I promote a system where the voter
is free to rank parties and candidates in any mix while you promote MMP.


You wrote (12 Jan 2003):
> Markus: "In Germany, the party label is printed next to the according
> candidate."
> Donald:  This is necessary in order for the voter to vote for his party
> regardless of the candidate.  It is the desire of the majority to vote for
> their party first, don't fight it Markus, join them, allow the voter to
> rank both parties and candidates.

I'm not fighting it. You are fighting it. I want you to remember that I
promote a system where voters can rank both parties and candidates while
you promote MMP. In one of my 24 Dec 2002 mails, I wrote: "I suggest that
a voter should be able to rank parties and candidates."

Markus Schulze

For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list