[EM] Re: PR vs. Geographic Representation

[Stephane Rouillon]

"wclark at xoom.org" a écrit :

> James Gilmour wrote:
>
> > If you were to adopt any party list system of PR (closed list, open
> > list, MMP) you would give the parities more leverage.  But if you
> > adopted STV-PR (Choice Voting) you could shift the balance of power
> > away from the parties to the voters.

Open list is rather good too. James, please can you justify?

> I'll look into STV-PR, then.  Stephane Rouillon has also suggested to me
> that I examine SPPA, which I believe may be a variant of (or at least
> similar to) STV-PR.

Yes there are some similitudes. From the properties of electoral systems, not
from a
mechanical point of view, SPPA is near 1 huge super-district STV.
First let me agree with James on something.
IMHO, STV is the best multiple-winner election method among actually used
models. Clear enough.

Now for the critics I have.
1) It let's still place to some arbitrary dimension of super-districts that
can imply
 unpartial results or just simple random distortions. In other word it is a
semi-proportional model, the greater super-districts, the better
proportionality.
2) It still has a lot of dealing behind the scene to avoid other popular
person from the same party running in the same super-district you do. Some
party even avoid presenting 5 runners in a 5 seats districts. So clearly,
strategy still has an important role.
3) Re-districting between super-district still is an issue, less occurring but
still present.
4) Serious voters should listen to many candidates in order to build their
preferences.
A ballot contains many names, ranking is not the problem to me, it is just
knowing what all these people defend (number of seats x number of parties +
independants). Debates
are difficult to organize too.
5) No garantee for a stable government (bipartite coalition or majoritarian
government) is available.
6) STV maintains a geographical link between the represented and the
reprentatives.
Thus dealing and buying elections with geographical investment will stay a
ritual political behavior.

So imagine what I think of other models!!!

SPPA tries to solve these issues. Believe me, it still has other defects.

>
> Searching for both of those terms in conjunction has yielded quite
> satisfying results from the archive.
>
> [Incidentally, there have been many recent suggestions that people should
> use the archives more -- but in many cases they are extraordinarily
> difficult to search, because topics are frequently discussed in
> misleadingly labeled threads or using terms that pop up so frequently they
> provide no assistance in filtering.

> ...
> > It is then up to the voters whether they use the power they have been
> > given.
>
> That's fine with me.  I'm opposed to political parties, but I'd certainly
> prefer a system that left it up to voters as a whole whether or not to
> take away the power that parties wield.  After all, maybe I'm wrong and
> political parties are actually a *good* thing, and I just don't see it.
>
> -Bill Clark

Political parties will always rise because politicians all have a priority.
Groups form in favour or against each of these priority. Political parties are
only an official expression
of the mathematical sets that represent all combinations. I think it is better
to aknowledge
this reality because unofficial parties would still play a role about the
strategy of an election.
So suppose parties exist. But don't let them decide for voters.

Steph