[EM] Disproportionate or proportionate representation system

[raphfrk at netscape.net]

Dharma (subscribed lists) wrote:
 
 > What are the views on this sort of electoral system - is it proportional
 > representation or disproportional.
 
 << the top 2 parties gets 40% of the seats each and the the 3rd party gets 20% >>
 > The result, assuming the following numbers of electors:

>

> A - 30

> B - 90

> C - 15



Are the electors assigned in proportion to the popular support for the

parties?



> A - 30 get a percentage of 24/60 votes

> B - 90 get a percentage of 24/60 votes

> C - 15 get a percentage of 12/60 votes

> 

> Then reducing each down to one person

>

> A - 1 person gets 1.333% of the election rights

> B - 1 person gets 0.444% of the election rights

> C - 1 person gets 1.333% of the election rights

>

> The vote of a B is worth only 1/3rd of any other vote.



Right, this gives less voting power to electors from group A.



However, this is not necessarily a bad thing.  For example, party

A might assign 90 electors even though it has only 40% of the 

popular vote.  In effect, each party would decide if it wants lots

of low power representatives or a small number of high power 

representatives.  I doubt that is what you meant though ?



However, an issue with the suggestion is that it gives all 3

parties equal power if they block vote.  Any two parties will

have 50%+ of the vote.  This means that even though party C is

the weakest party, it gets equal say to the other 2.  If the 

top 2 parties don't maintain party discipline, then party C's

power is somewhat diminished as in a free vote, co-operation 

between the top 2 parties is improved.



What is the reason for suggesting this system ?  I assume it is

to guarantee that a 3rd party exists, or is it to ensure that no

party gets an outright majority ?



(assuming that it won't defeat the purpose)

What about having the rule recognising when a party gets an outright 

majority.



A is the largest party.  B is next and C is 3rd largest.



Voters can vote for any party, but only the top 3 parties gets any seats.



if A gets > 50%, the split is:



A: 55%

B: 30%

C: 15%



If A gets more than 1/3 and <= 50%



A: 45%

B: 35%

C: 25%



If A gets < 1/3 (can only happen with a 4th party "spoiling")



A: 35%

B: 33%

C: 32%



Such a system isn't very fair on the 4th party.  Also, proportional

systems can ensure that a party gets an exact percentage to match its 

popular support.



I think something like asset voting, PR-STV or even the open party 

list method would be better.  They all allow more parties to exist

than 3.



I think that preventing 1 party from dominating is best served

by having a system that allows multiple parties to exist rather than

force it .  However, ideally, the voting system should not 

recognise the existance of parties at all.


________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20061004/3cab5cfd/attachment-0003.htm>