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

[James Gilmour]

Jonathan Lundell > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 4:09 PM
> > On Aug 18, 2008, at 2:00 AM, James Gilmour wrote:
> > I have to say I just do not understand the obsession with "lists".   
> > I can understand why countries that have used party list PR for many 
> > decades are (mostly) content not to change, but those countries
> > have at least a century of a very different political culture
> > from that of the UK and those countries around the world which have  
> > suffered the appalling British legacy of single-member electoral
> > districts and first-past-the-post plurality voting.
> 
> An assumption, I think, that voters won't have the patience and  
> attention span to evaluate a long list of candidates, and need the  
> crutch of party guidance to cast their votes.
> 
> I also think that fear is largely unfounded, at least in countries  
> with high literacy rates and good communications.

Yes, the evidence suggests that this assumption is unfounded  -  indeed, it is insulting to the voters.  Although wrapped up in
other words, it is regularly trotted out by the opponents of voting system reform (who stand to lose by any change to a PR system,
but have a special hatred of STV-PR).


> Certainly here in  
> election-happy California the majority of our contests (though not the  
> highest-profile ones) are at least nominally nonpartisan, so that no  
> party identification appears on the (FPTP) ballot.

In contrast, all of our public elections in the UK, except Community Councils, are partisan, though many independents do stand and
many of the 351 registered political parties are very local groups.  Party descriptions have long been allowed on our ballot papers,
but the descriptions are now regulated (must be regsitered).  For some years parties have also been allowed to include one of the
party's registered emblems (logos) on the ballot paper.  There has recently been a public consultation on all of this.


> It's also easier to explain party lists than STV. Well, at least the  
> simpler variations; the more complicated MMD/top-up schemes 
> are pretty arcane.

Yes, maybe for the simpler party list systems ("mark one 'X' against one party"), but the voter's choice and its effect is also
simplified, so that it has only a very simple effect on the outcome.  When STV-PR was introduced last year we didn't find it
difficult to explain to electors that they mark the candidates in the order of their personal choice.  They make such choices every
day of life in other fields  -  they had just never been given any real choice in public elections before.  And don't let anyone
suggest voting in MMP is easy to explain.  Experience in Scotland shows it is extremely difficult for voters to know how to cast
their two votes to get the results they really want.  In comparison, STV-PR is extremely simple and straightforward  -  you vote for
what you really want  -  no need for "strategy", no need for "tactics".

James

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG. 
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.6.4/1617 - Release Date: 17/08/2008 12:58