[EM] Request comments on MMP?
asmall at physics.ucsb.edu
Sat Jul 26 17:57:04 PDT 2003
James Gilmour said:
> Olli wrote, re party list:
>> I do. STV would be ideal, but in the real world, with existing
>> parties, it's unnecessarily complicated, both for the election
>> officials and the voters,
> I dispute this. It cannot be "unnecessarily complicated" because it has
> worked OK in Ireland since 1920 and Northern Ireland since 1973, all
> with hand sorting and counting. The electors in Ireland love it so much
> that they twice defeated government moves to abandon it.
I actually think STV is superior to open party-list in principle, but in
practice I'm not convinced America is ready for it.
To prove me wrong, all you have to do is go to southeast Florida, take a
representative and statistically significant sample of registered voters,
and try to explain STV to them. If you get 80% to understand it, I'll
enthusiastically support STV.
Until then, I think the Swiss version of open party-list is the best
compromise between simplicity and principle: Each voter gets a number of
votes equal to the number of seats up for election. He or she can vote
for whichever candidates he or she wants to, giving each candidate up to 2
votes. A vote for a candidate is also a vote for the list, and seats are
apportioned among lists using some quota system (Hare? Droop? Saint
Somebody? I don't know). The candidates elected from each list are the
ones with the most votes.
(In politics, I'm a great admirer of many aspects of the Swiss system.)
More information about the Election-Methods