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

[James Gilmour]

Stephane Rouillon Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 2:41 AM
> I never said that the electorate will was to identify itself
> to some political parties.

I never said you did.  MY comments (in full below) made absolutely no mention of political parties.

I was concerned only to draw the distinction in multi-winner elections between the view that the voting system should
maximise representation of consensus and the view that the voting system should maximise representation of diversity.

> 
> 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.

I made no comment about your SPPA voting system, nor did I have it in mind when I wrote my comments about consensus and
diversity.

My comment was intended to be a completely general one, relating to issues that overtly or covertly run through much of
the discussion about the purposes of elections.  The only voting system I had in mind was STV-PR: it has implementations
that maximise diversity (Dáil Éireann rules) and implementations that maximise consensus (Meek rules).

James

> 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