[EM] Disproportionate or proportionate representation system

[BABA NAM KEVALAM]

Hi
 
See below
 
Dharma


  _____  

From: raphfrk at netscape.net [mailto:raphfrk at netscape.net] 
Sent: Thursday, 5 October 2006 8:49 AM
To: election-methods at electorama.com
Subject: [EM] Disproportionate or proportionate representation system


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% >> 
 
D: Yes. And we never truly know the number of electors in each party.  That
is A could fluctuate around 30+/-10 and so on.  Isn't it proportional if the
number of electors in each group actually do reflect the numbers actually
elected as representatives.?  Otherwise it is disproportional. 

> 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? 

 
Not necessarily.  Say there are 3 ethic groups as the basis of the
assigning.  The number of electors in each group is below and as are the
voting proportions.  So groups A, B, C are different ethnic groups within a
particular association. 


> 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. 
 
Did  you mean group B? 


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.

  _____  

 
<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1081283466x1074645346/aol?redir=htt
p%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaim%2Ecom%2Ffun%2Fmail%2F> 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/20061007/75327cfc/attachment-0003.htm>