[EM] Re: majority rule, mutinous pirates, and voter strategy
jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk
Tue May 31 00:28:28 PDT 2005
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
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).
> 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."
> 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
More information about the Election-Methods