[Election-Methods] Local representation

[Juho]

On Jul 16, 2008, at 16:53 , James Gilmour wrote:

> raphfrk  > Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 1:48 PM
>>> From: James Gilmour
>>> There is always a trade-off between guaranteed local representation
>>> (small districts) and proportionality (large districts),
>>> whatever the voting system.
>>
>> Local representation isn't that important.  The benefit that
>> is called 'local representation' is the ability of the voters
>> to directly control their representative.
>
> My 45 years of campaigning for practical reform of voting systems  
> lead me to disagree with you, at least so far as the UK is
> concerned.  I suspect much the same applies in other countries that  
> have had many decades of the appalling British legacy of
> single-member districts - hence the attraction of MMP, that APPEARS  
> to offer "the best of both worlds".  It is not just direct
> control and accountability  -  there is definitely a geographical  
> localism in what electors say they want.

>> However, ignoring logistics, PR-STV with a single
>> constituency would not have any tradeoff.  There would be
>> (near) perfect PR and each voter would be directly
>> represented by someone they choose.
>
> For the reasons given above, I cannot agree with this statement.   
> There is always a trade-off between overall proportionality and
> local representation.  In the 1890s some UK advocates of STV-PR  
> wanted the whole UK to be one electoral district, so the voter in
> Caithness (extreme north) and the voter in Cornwall (extreme south)  
> could both vote for and be represented by the candidate from
> Cambridge (middle England) if they thought that candidate would  
> best represent their views.  Of course, practical reformers never
> promoted such "perfect PR" ideas because they realised the  
> importance of geographically local representation to the real  
> electors in
> the real world  -  to say nothing of the opposition from the  
> politicians (who cannot be ignored if you want to achieve reform).

> These ideas are all non-starters, at least in the UK.  Our electors  
> like candidates tied to specified geographical areas (even if
> these areas are multi-member electoral districts).

I can see three different local/personal representation concepts  
here. (just to clarify my thoughts, and maybe help some others too)

1) Single-member district related
- the basic philosophy/benefit is to keep the distance between  
representatives and their voters/citizens short
- the voters know who their representative is (but the representative  
may represent "wrong party")
- the representatives know what group of citizens they represent
- the representatives probably supports many local activities (this  
may be good and bad)

2) Multi-member district related (open list assumed in the  
explanation below)
- the basic philosophy/benefit is to keep all parts of the country  
represented (also single-member districts do this)
- the voters know whom they voted (if that candidate was not elected  
then their vote was counted for the other representatives of the  
"right party") (only a mental link without any more concrete impact)
- the representatives do not know which voters voted for them or  
their party (the voters can thus contact any representative of this  
district as "their own")
- the representatives probably support many regional activities (this  
may be good and bad)

3) Personal vote related (as in STV-PR without districts)
- the basic philosophy/benefit is to allow voters to pinpoint their  
representatives without being bound to a party structure and districts
- the voters know which for which representative their vote was  
counted for (only a mental link without any more concrete impact)
- the representatives do not know which voters voted for them (the  
voters can thus contact any representative (that is the name as  
none:-)) as "their own")
- the representatives do not represent any regions (regional  
proportionality not supported)

Note that the needs of close relationship between a representative  
and his/her voters, regional proportionality and ability to vote  
without being bound by the party structure or by the districts are  
all quite separate targets.

Note that there is a strong correlation between candidates that some  
voter votes and the ideology that they represent. It is thus typical  
that a vote to a candidate is also a vote to the ideology/party that  
he/she represents. The total freedom of STV-PR to vote any candidates  
of any party may thus quite often be just a nice option but not very  
needed (typically just low level of noise in the results). Elected  
candidates probably work for their party anyway, so one can not get  
rid of these bindings even if the voters would be allowed to bypass  
them in their ballot.

The freedom of voters to determine the order of inheritance of their  
vote in STV-PR is maybe more meaningful within the party that the  
candidate belongs to (vs. between parties). The voter can make sure  
that his/her vote will go e.g. to the right wing of his/her party by  
listing only candidates that he/she assumes to belong to that wing.  
Normal party lists do not support this. But it is possible to extend  
them so that they do (e.g. by using subgroups or a tree like  
structure within the party). The difference between these two  
approaches is again "more freedom" vs. "clear groupings" (that keep  
the ballots simple, help the voters to understand the bindings of all  
of the candidates, and after the election bind the representatives to  
their announced policy).

Juho





	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine 
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html