[EM] STV district magnitude

[Stephane Rouillon]

I do agree, but you need to prove that the adverse effects
are not ghosts...

I do not think that the advantages of a "reasonable district size"
outcomes obviously its disadvantages when compared to pure PR
systems.

Alex says that "a reasonable district size will also keep the
representatives closer to those they represent, and will keep the focus in
elections more on the individual candidates because the field of
candidates won't be as crowded."

Geographical "closerness" is a bad thing.  Yes in one hand it gives
an elected representative that knows the district better than others.
But on the other hand, it attracts several dysfunctional behaviors. It
attracts lobbyist not legislators. It attracts people who want to get
the best to their local community, at the detriment of the country or
other districts nerby if necessary.  It institutionalizes ghettos, purshasable

votes for the next metro station or the next plant subvention. I agree, it
worked like that for decades everywhere. But if a system can offer
elections using principles and not interests, ideas not fashions, should'nt
you consider this more closely.

Making "virtual" ridings non-geographically-based migth not be considered
by serious electoral-reformers, and it is not going to be feasible soon, but
do you see another way to remove personal interest from the election process.
Ethics seems the only other way.  We have bet on that for decades, yet
scandals
still follow each other even if we elect rich, well educated, passionate and
full of
good will persons.  I am an idealist if you want.  But if you hope those
issues
will vanish by themselves, you are more an utopist than me.  You can't say it
is
impossible to reach the moon unless at least you try...

Finally, I do agree that a crowded field with too many names is not good.
SPPA tries to get the best of both worlds: only one name per party on
the ballot but still the ability to compare all candidates of a same party.

Stephane

Alex Small a wrote :

> James Gilmour said:
> > There is more to effective representation and effective democracy than
> > maximised PR.  If the maximal PR has adverse effects, I am quite
> > prepared to see the PR restricted - though I prefer to see that done
> > through some logical determination of district magnitude rather than an
> > arbitrary threshold.
>
> Excellent point.  This is true irrespective of the PR method used.  I
> might add that a reasonable district size will also keep the
> representatives closer to those they represent, and will keep the focus in
> elections more on the individual candidates because the field of
> candidates won't be as crowded.