[EM] Re: majority rule, mutinous pirates, and voter strategy

[Stephane Rouillon]

James,

I never said that the electorate will was to identify itself
to some political parties.

You mix the fact that I use political parties in SPPA to simplify ballot treatment
in order to get nearer our common objective (a representative chamber that is
independent of party lines) and the fact that other people (not me) consider
that proportionality is only measured using party distributions.

Yes I lose something with SPPA (using party affiliation to transfer votes)
compared to STV-PR using only individually expressed transfers.
But I gain more because SPPA results in a proportionailty equivalent
to a single district STV-PR, a level STV-PR cannot reach because ballots
with hundreds of names scares the electorate. This is "the realities of
politics in the real world."

Steph.
PS: Please note that I will never repeat it enough: STV-PR is in my humble
opinion the best multiple-winner electoral system among the ones actually
used in the world. It should not stop us to search for a better one.

James Gilmour a écrit :

> Stephane Rouillon Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 5:44 AM
> > Criterias and electoral methods hare not meant to
> > cope for a fractionated electorate. An electoral system
> > goal is to get the electorate will, whatever it is.
>
> This may be true for single-winner elections, eg city mayor, state governor, but fractionated electorates are the
> realities of politics in the real world.

> For elections to councils, assemblies and legislatures it is only one view of the goal of an electoral system.  Those
> steeped in social choice theory believe that the purpose of a voting system should be to maximise representation of
> consensus among the electors.  But there is a much older view: that the purpose of a voting system should be to maximise
> representation of the diversity among the electors.
>
> James Gilmour