[EM] Disproportionate or proportionate representation system

[BABA NAM KEVALAM]

This would be my conclusion that the system (below) creates a
disproportionate voting system, not a proportionate voting system.  In fact,
it is a system of weightage, as it can give more seats than actually match
the proportionate numbers in a category in the electoral college.  
 
There is only proportion if there are 24:24:12 persons (or higher number of
persons, but in same ratio) in each category of the electoral college, and
no one can guarantee that this will always be so, let alone where anyone may
even be categorised in the first place, or who is going to do the
categorization. 
 
24:24:12 will give you 2:2:1 but clearly if there are actually 30:20:10
persons in each category, still it is intended to produce 2:2:1 (when it
should be producing 3:2:1), then there is a disproportionate voting system
for some, and weightage in favour of minorities. Same if there are 35:20:5 -
it does not give 2:2:1 - so it is disproportionate - but still they want the
votes to come out 2:2:1 (when it should be 7:4:1).  Ultimately when the
numbers do not stack up, someone is really taking advantage of someone
else's portion of the election rights.  To cloak the real facts - ie what
the statistics are on the ground - the artificiality of 3 groupifications is
invented pretending they represent 2:2:1, when that may not even be the
truth when one actually counts the real figures.  No one knows that the
numbers in the 3 groupifications will always actually be in ratio 2:2:1 (or
even within the 5% margin of error acceptable in statistics) and no one will
know or be able to judge in the future.


  _____  

From: raphfrk at netscape.net [mailto:raphfrk at netscape.net] 
Sent: Monday, 9 October 2006 8:50 PM
To: election-methods at electorama.com
Subject: Re: [EM] Disproportionate or proportionate representation system


 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
 
  
  _____  

 
<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/20061023/c54e85a4/attachment-0003.htm>