[EM] Another PR method based on ranked ballots

[Alex Small]

James Gilmour said:
> How do you define "suitable"?
>
> All single-winner methods will distort the wishes of the voters.  In
> my book, NO single-winner method is "suitable" for this purpose.

Well, let's start with the observation that some offices are
single-winner by their very nature.  The only way to do away with
single-winner elections is to elect a legislature by PR and then either

1)  let the legislature appoint/elect the executive
or
2)  elect a collegial executive branch, say, a council of 7 or so
members which makes its decisions by majority vote and selects its own
officers.  This is basically a mini-legislature.

But, if you believe that there are offices for which single-winner
elections are appropriate, then all I really mean by "suitable" is "Your
favorite single-winner method."

The rationale for electing a branch of the legislature by single-winner
methods is that PR can encourage/empower extremist parties, particularly
if the largest minority party gets special status in the legislature.
By contrast, a good single-winner method (the definition of "good" being
the main preoccupation of this list) says "OK, yes, we all break down
into our various factions.  But, who has the strongest overall support,
who can be 'a uniter, not a divider'?"  (to steal a phrase from the man
who divided the world recently)

I think that moderating aspect is desirable.  Whereas a house elected by
PR might include a lot of far-left, far-right, and
far-in-other-direction parties, a house elected by single-winner methods
will include mostly "slightly left", "slightly right", "slightly other
direction", "moderate", and "mix of issues that doesn't fit any neat
label but seems to satisfy a lot of voters."



Alex