[EM] Unicameral single-member + PR in Germany

[Stephane Rouillon]

I understand very well.
Your system is fully proportional (to the integer limit that forbids having
fraction of representatives)
and it uses single-member district in the sense that each party would present
only one representative
per seat. It is even a single-winner method because each district produces one
and only one winner.
The only difference is that it is not necessarily the person with most votes
that would be declared winner,
because the process would select all the winners to maximize the total
approbation rate under both constraints:
1 winnner per district and full PR to the integral limit.

What I dislike about your system is the fact that it maintains some
discrimation between candidates running for
the same party: the one that run in a district where their party has a strong
support will grab the seats of their
party. Why bother having an election, when most of the results comes from the
''investiture'' (sorry I do not know the english word: the candidate selection
process) and only ambivalent districts represent a real choice...

Not that FPTP already has this problem. STV solves it by allowing candidates
of a same party to be adversaries at some level, as SPPA does...
SPPA considers districts as non-geographic samples that are equivallent in
terms of popular will. The only bias that modulates results from one district
to another are the personalities of the candidates.

Juho a écrit :

> How do you see this method that I presented earlier on the list?
> http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/
> 2006-July/018392.html
> I think it is proportional and single winner (but does not always
> elect the plurality winner of each district).
>
> Juho Laatu
>
> On Oct 16, 2006, at 23:30 , Stephane Rouillon wrote:
>
> > It is possible to achieve PR with single-member districts if by
> > single-member district it means
> > only one representative of any political can be candidate. This
> > unclassical definition does not say that there will be only one
> > winner.
> > There could be several or even none.
> >
> > However, if by single-member district , it means a single winner
> > will be elected, as it is commonly understood, then James is right as
> > usual: no PR can thus be reached.
> >
> > The difference depends on the interpretation of districts: the
> > second solution is a local region for which the election will
> > design one
> > representative. For the first interpretation, districts are just
> > samples used to obtain the results
> > of different elections with the same political parties as
> > opponents, but represented by different candidates.
> >
> > Do you see candidates as party representatives or people
> > representatives? It's like truth and beauty, all in the eye of the
> > beholder...
> >
> > James Gilmour a écrit :
> >
> >> (...)
> >
> >> My statement related to voting systems based on
> >> "single-member districts" and it is correct that if you have only
> >> single-member districts you cannot have PR (except by chance).
> >> (...)
> >
> >> James Gilmour
> >>
> >> ----
> >> election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
> >> list info
> >
> > ----
> > election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
> > list info
>
> Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
> ----
> election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info