[EM] Competitive Districting Rule

[James Gilmour]

> Brian Olson Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 6:57 PM
> To: Election Methods Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [EM] Competitive Districting Rule
> 
> 
> > > Brian Olson Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 8:53 AM
> > > I still think I want a bicameral legislature with one 
> > > districted body and one PR/proxy/asset body.
> 
> > On Jul 8, 2006, at 9:26 AM, James Gilmour wrote: 
> > If you want a bicameral legislature, why would you want one 
> > chamber elected so that it is unrepresentative of those who 
> > voted for its members?  You can have both districts and PR 
> > for the same chamber.  Of course, you cannot have 
> > single-member districts and PR, but STV-PR offers a good 
> > compromise of effective local representation (in modestly 
> > sized multi-member districts) and overall PR.
> 
> 
> Single member districts still have some benefits. They're 
> well understood.

Brian, the First-Past-The-Post (simple plurality) voting system that usually goes with single-member districts is also
"well understood".  But that is no good reason for retaining either FPTP or single-member districts in the light of all
their other effects (defects).

> The practice of having a local 
> representative who interacts with constituents is well 
> established. 

Yes, and should be valued and retained.  Interestingly, the "local link" is actually strengthened with STV-PR because of
the elected candidates are elected only because they have the personal support of a local "constituency" of voters.
Because the voters have real choice among the candidates, that link is made stronger.

> And I think that some issues really do still 
> have a local or regional basis which makes sense to take 
> account of by geographic representation.

Yes, most electors do look for some compromise (balance) between local representation and national (or state-wide)
proportionality.  At least, this seems to be the view of electors who live in district-based political systems.  (Those
who know only national PR seem equally happy with that.)


> They're easy.

Maybe, but they create massive problems of every kind.


> To have meaningful PR we need at least 5 seats per election?

Depends on a number of factors, but 5 seats per multi-member district is a reasonable average.


> To do this we can either merge districts in sets of 5 

Yes.

> or grow 
> the size of the legislative body (by up to 5 times its 
> current size).

NO!!


> Some legislatures and many districts are 
> already too large. 

Too large for what?  California (area = 158,402 square miles) is represented in the US Senate by two Senators.  Is that
too big or too small?

> But I guess both of those don't often 
> happen in the same place so maybe by choosing one or the 
> other growth it could be made to work acceptably.
> 
> 
> By splitting the representation methods, having a fully 
> at-large undistricted PR body and an anti-gerrymandered local 
> representation districted body, I think both representation 
> styles are covered and there isn't a need to hybridize them.

There are some undesirable politic effects in having "a fully at-large undistricted PR body".  To reduce some of the
adverse effects, many such bodies have an arbitrary threshold of 5% of the national (or state-wide) votes to secure
representation.  And of course, such national PR bodies can give PR only of registered political parties.  That, too, is
highly undesirable  -  what we should be aiming for is PR of the voters.

I don't know if you regard STV-PR as a hybridized voting system (what's wrong with hybridization?), but it does allow a
universal and variable balance to be struck between the desiderata of local representation and overall PR (in this case,
PR of the voters, not just PR of political parties).


> Perhaps part of the problem with districts is that it needs 
> to be made clear to representatives that it is their duty to 
> represent _everyone_ in their district and not just the 
> people who voted for them.

Representatives elected from single-member districts and opposed STV-PR, usually claim that they DO represent everyone
within that district  -  what is obvious nonsense.  Representation is likely to be more effective when the voters have
free choice among a range of candidates (within parties as well as between parties); when districts return several
members together who collectively have the support of the overwhelming majority of those who voted; and when voters can
chose which representative to consult with their problem or issue, by party, by locality, or by special interest.  A
little (real) competition among the locally elected representatives is likely to be good for effective representation
and the health of democracy, and we have some public opinion poll evidence that it would be welcomed by electors (at
least, here in Scotland).

James Gilmour