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

[Raph Frank]

On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 7:34 PM, James Gilmour <jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Raph Frank > Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2008 12:22 AM
>> I think a reasonable compromise is the system where a voter
>> picks a list and can override it.  This could include a
>> system where any voter can register a list prior to the election.
>
> I would recommend against any provision for "above the line voting" (picking an pre-ordered list) of any kind in STV-PR.  This is
> standard in Australia but it has perverted STV-PR from being a sensitive voter-centred system to being little more than a
> closed-list party-list PR system.

This problem is caused by the lack of an override.

Each voter has a choice, they can vote for one of the party lists
by placing one mark on the ballot or they can vote their own
rankings.  However, if they vote their own rankings, they must rank
all candidates standing in the district.  This might be the difference
between 1 mark and 80+ rankings.

The effect is that 95%+ of voters just use the (closed) party lists.

> I don't think registered "voter chosen lists" will ever get off the
> ground.

The compromise was that each candidate would pick his own
list.

However, clearly the Australian system is not 'real' PR-STV as
it effectively forces voters to vote based on the party list.

OTOH, the Australian system wouldn't be quite so bad if they
didn't require that each voter rank every candidate.  That would
mean that each voter's vote would be slightly weaker if they
decided not to use the party list (but probably still 95%+
strength)

> There is no evidence, apart from Australia which has both compulsory
> voting and compulsory marking of preferences, that marking all
> the preferences you want is in any way inconvenient for the voters.

My thoughts are for large districts, it allows voters to in effect
submit long ballots.

However, in most cases, as long as you rank at least 1-2 candidates
who end up getting elected, your vote would be nearly full strength.

Also, I would make it voluntary.  Each ballot would be a list of
local candidates, and on one side you get to rank them directly
and on the other side would be the ability to use their list.

A voter would be allow to just cast 1 vote for their favourite and
leave it at that.

> The evidence from countries which presently have single-member districts but are considering reform of the voting system, is that
> electors want a balance between proportional representation of the main political groups AND guaranteed local representation.  It is
> difficult enough to convince them that with STV-PR they really can get both with modestly sized multi-member districts.

Yeah is annoying.  In Ireland, there are a fair few 3 seater
constituencies.

> It would be
> impossible to persuade them of the benefits of PR reform if all the members were to be elected at large (UK House of Commons = 646
> MPs, Scottish Parliament = 129 MSPs).  STV-PR was once viewed in this utopian way in the UK (in the 1880s), but now it is promoted
> by practical reformers who are more attuned to the concerns of real electors.
>

I guess it depends on what you want.  PR-STV allows the
voters to decide if they want local or national candidates to
be elected.  It also allows them balance party based PR with
electing candidates that they like.

Personally, I don't see perfect national party PR as a
goal in and of itself.  This should be down to what the
voters actually want.