[EM] [Election-Methods] [english 94%] PR favoring racialminorities

[Juho]

On Aug 15, 2008, at 18:45 , Jonathan Lundell wrote:

> On Aug 15, 2008, at 7:40 AM, James Gilmour wrote:
>
>>> Jobst Heitzig said:
>>>> It is of no help for a minority to be represented proportionally  
>>>> when
>>>> still a mere 51% majority can make all decisions!
>>
>>> raphfrk replied
>>> I disagree.  The advantage is that it allows 'on the fly'
>>> coalition re-organisation.
>>
>> I also disagree, but for a different reason and even when there is  
>> no chance at all of on-the-fly coalition re-organisation.  A
>> minority of 49% can be very effective in holding the majority to  
>> account and ensuring that the majority's proposals and decisions
>> are subject to public scrutiny.  Here in Scotland, our 32 local  
>> authority councils were all elected from single-member wards (small
>> electoral districts) by FPTP.  We had become used to one-party  
>> states, like Glasgow City Council where one party could hold 74 out
>> of 79 seats for just 49.6% of the votes city-wide, or Midlothian  
>> Council where one party held 17 of the 18 seats with just 46% of
>> the votes.  When such distorted one-party rule persists for  
>> several decades the political effects are very serious.  But we  
>> put an
>> end to that in May 2007 when we elected all our councillors by STV- 
>> PR.  Now there is effective opposition and scrutiny in every
>> council and the minority voices are heard.
>
> We see something like that in my local five-member school district  
> (on the California coast hard by Silicon Valley). The electorate is  
> factionalized (never mind the issues) and there's a consistent  
> 55-60% majority that elects all five members. As a consequence, the  
> board can hold closed meetings with impunity. STV-PR (these are  
> nonpartisan elections, so party lists are out) would solve the  
> problem nicely. (Full disclosure: I ran for the board a few years  
> ago, losing respectably.)

If you have some issue X, wouldn't it also be natural to have one  
list "for X" and one list "against X"? I.e. lists but not "party  
lists". You may need to arrange the candidates anyway according to  
their opinions in some "lists" to make it clear to the voters who are  
"against" and who are "for". STV-PR gives the voters some flexibility  
that the list (or tree) based methods do not give but here I didn't  
see anything special that would speak against the use of lists.  
(Lists may also be more practical in some cases, e.g. if the number  
of candidates is high.)

> I'm a little skeptical of supermajority or consensus systems, which  
> can easily lead to paralysis if an sufficient minority simply  
> refuses to compromise. The California state budget rules are a case  
> in point; a 2/3 majority is required in both legislative houses to  
> pass a budget. The result is a perennial budget stalemate.

In that kind of questions either a simple majority should be enough,  
or alternatively one could only reopen the discussion with >1/3  
support but at the second round simple majority would be enough. I  
think supermajorities have a more natural role e.g. when changing (or  
amending) constitution.

Juho


> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for  
> list info


		
___________________________________________________________ 
Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" – The Wall Street Journal 
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html