[EM] Question for STV-PR supporters

[Stephane Rouillon]

James Gilmour wrote :

> Proponents of so-called "pure PR" may say that the electors have got
> their priorities wrong, but practical reformers would be unwise to
> ignore the electors' desire to secure discrete representation for the
> "natural communities" that exist within the boundaries of legislatures
> at all levels.  It is to give expression to these natural communities
> that it is also common to vary the district magnitude among the
> districts within a legislature.  PR purists may protest that this
> introduces urban/rural bias, and party bias where the support for
> parties varies from district to district.  But experience shows that
> real electors are more concerned about their communities than about the
> exactitude of proportional representation.

My experience shows not!!!
My experience shows that only politicians are actually making all they can
to set this as a necessity. When you ask a politician why it is so important
to
have a geographical link with its electorate, (s)he says it is because (s)he
can
to discuss with every voter a couple of hours every year about their local
needs
and interest. Simple calculation shows that a normal person sleeping, eating,
working
in the assembly has around ten minutes to give to every voter during its
mandate (4 years).
No the main reason is politician want to protect the regional contact that can
make them
get elected and that allows them to fullfill a lobbyist job with some
communities in exchange
for votes.

Do not misunderstand. I am for individual votes, links, responsabilities and
imputability.
We just do not need regional links anymore because we now have, phones,
radios, tv,
internet, newspapers and so on... We can now have an assembly of a country
with every
member elected by a sampling of the entire country, working for the benefit of
the entire
country without any specific local interest.

I let you all answer, I am sure you have your own opinions on this...

Stephane Rouillon