[EM] PR favoring racial minorities

[Jonathan Lundell]

On Aug 23, 2008, at 3:34 PM, James Gilmour wrote:

> And why should there be guaranteed proportionality for women?  The  
> logical corollary is guaranteed proportionality for men.  Just
> for the record, I am opposed to both and would be very happy if 60%  
> or more of the MSPs in the Scottish Parliament were women
> PROVIDED we had voted them into office by our free choice with a  
> suitably sensitive voting system.  If we are going to guarantee
> proportionality to eliminate sex discrimination, we must logically  
> follow with proportionality to eliminate other discriminations
> that have been officially recognised, starting most obviously with  
> those that have already been enshrined in law: race, religion,
> disability, age.  Once you start down that anti-discrimination road  
> there is no logical end point.  Better by far to change to a
> sensitive voting system that gives the voters free choice among all  
> the candidates and encourages the political parties and other
> nominating groups to offer the widest choice of candidates to the  
> voters, representative of the local community.

Apropos this general subject, David Hill wrote an article on the  
subject of STV with constraints (Voting matters <http://www.votingmatters.org.uk/ISSUE9/P1.HTM 
 >). He concludes (and I agree):

> I believe that the approach given above is the best way, within STV,  
> to implement constraints but that they should not be employed unless  
> it cannot be avoided.
> The mechanisms of STV are already designed to give voters what they  
> want, so far as possible, in proportion to their numbers. It should  
> be for the voters to decide what they want, not for anyone else to  
> tell them what they ought to want.
>
> The magazine Punch in 1845 included "Advice to persons about to  
> marry - Don't". My advice on constraints is similar.