[EM] Question for STV-PR supporters

[Stephane Rouillon]

To me STV is the best actually used model,
but it can be improved to be fully proportional and
reduce the length of candidacies' list.

With the sampling component of SPPA,
you can do the equivalent of only one huge large-magnitude district of let's say 146
seats,
and each voter would have only one candidate per party to choose from
(plus some independents that are interested to run for specific debates).
Fully proportional, but it keeps the advantage of single-seat candidacies,
just read http://www.fairvotecanada.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=8&forum=1&4.
For 146 seats, the sampling can be done using the date of birth (day, month, even or
odd year).

I would gladly answer questions...

Stephane Rouillon
PS: I can send a word version of SPPA model on demand...

James Green-Armytage wrote :

> Alex asked:
> >> I have an honest question for people who think that STV-PR and related
> >> methods are the best way to implement proportional representation in
> >> public elections.  I'm not trying to be combative, I'm just curious.
> >>
> >> How many members should a typical legislative district elect?  I doubt
> >> anybody would seriously propose using STV to elect
> >> representatives for,
> >> say, a 50-member district, since the number of candidates
> >> might be a few
> >> hundred.  Obviously voters wouldn't have to rank all 300 candidates or
> >> whatever, but the ballot would still be pretty imposing.
> >>
> >> So what district size would you recommend?  Or, what is the typical
> >> district size in places that use STV-PR for public elections?
> >
>         I agree that STV can be used for a district of any size. The main
> tradeoff in district magnitude seems to be between proportionality and
> connection with local / regional areas.
>         That is, the higher the district magnitude, the greater the
> proportionality, but the less connection between representatives and a
> particular geographic region.
>         So in any case it is a matter of deciding the relative value of those two
> factors. Maybe in some situations geographic association is unnecessary,
> so you will want to go with the highest possible district magnitude, i.e.
> one district.
>         Personally, I like to see PR with a district magnitude of at least 10
> seats, and I would tend to prefer more than that rather than less.
>         I agree that a paper ballot for a large-magnitude district might be kind
> of expensive. For example, if you had 50 seats, you might have upwards of
> 500 candidates. I've always imagined those kind of things on some sort of
> computer interface (with paper printouts etc., of course). That is, a
> user-friendly interface with various panels and buttons and whistles, one
> where you can search through the candidates by first name, last name,
> party, rank them as you go along, change your rankings, add write-ins or
> search from some kind of secondary list of candidates, and so on.
>         I agree that it might be a little expensive to put such machines to work
> all over the country, but hey, who can put a price on democracy, right?
>
> -- James
>
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info