[EM] Disproportionate or proportionate representation system

[raphfrk at netscape.net]

  Dharma wrote:
 > > raphfrk at netscape.net [mailto: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% >>
 >
 > 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.
 
 Well, it would be proportion in terms of seats allocated but not proportional
 in terms of power.
 
 >
 > > 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.
 
 Ahh, so electors = voters ? I was confused, I though you were talking
 about something like the electoral college, where electors are elected
 by the voters.
 
 
 > > 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?
 
   Yeah, right.
 
 I think the issue with something like this is that it crystalised the power state
 when the country is formed. How would it work anyway, would a voter have to
 specify what faction they were a part of (or would it be ethnic?) and then they
 only get to vote for that faction?
 
 OTOH, it does mean that the country doesn't go unstable if demographics change.
 For example, if a country was 40%, 40% and 20% as you suggest, then there is
 balance of power. However, if one faction has a higher birth rate and gets to
 50%, then suddenly, there could be tyranny of the majority. Having a rule that
 all parties will have a certain power acts as a check against that. Also, it
 would prevent something like a faction try to encourage mass immigration from
 a neighbouring country. 
 
 A similar effect can be achieved by having a super-majority requirement. If a 2/3
 majority is required to pass legislation, then tryanny of the majority is alot more
 difficult to pull off. Also, it means that you don't need to code ethnic 
 discrimination into the core laws of the society.
 
 
  Raphfrk
 --------------------
 Interesting site
 "what if anyone could modify the laws"
 
 www.wikocracy.com    
________________________________________________________________________
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/20061009/2de58f4a/attachment-0003.htm>