[EM] Introductory Message

[Stephane Rouillon]

Quotas are an artifice that sacrifices some part of representation to increase
the probability
of electing a majoritarian government.  Some people argue that coalitions are
stable enough.
I founded that some bipartite coalition are always stable. So if you prefer an
approach that
accepts to sacrifice some representation and only when it is necessary to
garantee a bipartite
coalition, read the "crutch"option of SPPA (Scrutin Préférentiel, Proportionnel
et Acirconscriptif)
model.  In summary the crutch opiton boosts the pluritarian party (the party
with most seats)
to 50%-1 seats in order to garantee a stable coalition.  The mandate length is
reduced in "fair"
proportion to keep an invariant in term of (person x time). For example, 30
representatives for
4 years could become 40 representatives for 3 years.

I hope it helps,
Steph

David GLAUDE a écrit :

> In Belgium, a 5% thresold was introduced in the proportional system at
> almost all level of election.
>
> This is of course ridiculous and will proof to be anti-democratic if the
> "Groen!" (Dutch speaking green party) get 4,9% as currently expected
> less than 40 days before European Election.
>
> Also it changed the shape of the political landscape in the Dutch
> speaking side by having all small party merging with the BIG one.
>
> I don't have a clue on why such a limit was introduce, but when you
> consider electronic voting in use here and this 5% limit, one can
> consider the lack of democracy in Belgium.
>
> 5% in Brussels regional election, it mean about 4 elected
> representative!!! So it is 4 or 0.
>
> I had a chance to talk with a representative of one of the 2 BIG party
> in the French speaking region (we cas say there are 2 BIG and 2 small)
> and he said he favour a system where there is only LEFT against RIGHT so
> he was favouring the disparition of any small entity.
>
> Those 5% are not even efficient to block the extremist party on the
> dutch speaking side, because they are way above that limit!!!
>
> Do you have any advocacy reference against those limit?
> Any other country with such silly limit?
>
> David GLAUDE
>
> Dave Ketchum wrote:
>
> >> Presently we vote for the parties that comprise the Knesset separately
> >> from the PM.  I should like to see voter ratings of 1 - 120 (120
> >> corresponding to the number of seats in the Knesset) for the parties
> >> that are contending for seats in the Knesset.  Thus, theoretically,
> >> one party could hold every seat in the Knesset (of course this
> >> scenario is well nigh impossible, but the possibility should exist).
> >> This voting procedure would not only determine which parties will
> >> comprise the Knesset, and how many seats they will have, but will do
> >> away with the present system of parties having to pass a 1.5% thre
> >> shold of votes in order to have any representation at all (see
> >> http://tinyurl.com/22woe).
>
> (in case tiny URL disapear:
> http://www.knesset.gov.il/description/eng/eng_mimshal_beh.htm)
>
> > If I read the 1.5% correctly, it says a party too weak to elect two
> > members should have none.  Seems like a political question we should duck.
> >
> > Also, I see no need to disturb the proportional representation presently
> > in use.  Anyone wishing to change this needs to explain the expected
> > benefits.
> >
> > I read of a variety of methods of creating party lists.
> >      Demanding that all change would likely be most successful at
> > inspiring enemies.
> >      If some methods are ugly, perhaps these could be improved.
>
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info