[EM] No geographical districts

[Stéphane Rouillon]

Why not self-chosen districts ?
Because then the last half of voters would be able to pick
between district already composed of majoritarians ideologies.
Again the least organized and the smallest group would finish splitted
between several districts where they would be in minority.

Do you really believe that if you represent 1% of an ideology,
others political parties will keep the last of 100 seats for you?
With an FPTP system they would gang up as much districts
to 51% and let you be minoritarian in the district(s) you want.

You could argue that a proportional system would solve the representation
problem, whatever district definition used. But it would not solve
the ability that politicians have for "bribing" a geographical district,
simply by targeting an area that is an undecided district. With selfchosen 
district,
anyone can say to teachers, automobile workers, or any other segment of the 
population:
"gather in one district, mine, and I'll flood your field with fresh 
investment"
With astrological districts, subventioning an hospital that would treat only 
people
born between january 11th and january 16th would be:
1) complex to implement;
2) easy to be proven;
3) an obvious case of political bribery attempt.
It would bring regions to discuss between one another instead of confront 
each other,
having all representatives of the whole country instead of each defending 
its piece of cake.

But I concede: it would not stop a classical influence traffic which consist 
of giving money
to a politician to tell him how to vote... That would still be a police job.

>From: Allen Smith <easmith at beatrice.rutgers.edu>
>To: <stephane.rouillon at sympatico.ca>
>CC: election-methods at electorama.com
>Subject: Re: [EM] No geographical districts
>Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 18:51:28 -0400
>
>In message <BAY104-F37EB23BC91C64156A090F68F5E0 at phx.gbl> (on 3 September
>2008 22:01:24 +0000), stephane.rouillon at sympatico.ca
>(=?iso-8859-1?B?U3TpcGhhbmUgUm91aWxsb24=?=) wrote:
> >Hello electorama fans,
> >
> >regarding that last comment, I invite those interested in 
>non-geographical
> >district to consider astrological district.
>
>How about self-chosen districts? One element of current geographical
>districts is that people at least theoretically (and in some actual cases -
>see Libertarians moving to New Hampshire, Alaska, etc for instance) can
>choose to move to be more around people they agree more with; that even 
>this
>(frequently impractical) method would be impossible with such a system 
>would
>be one objection to it.
>
> >...
> >>However, even something like "they should be compact" favours some
> >>people.  If you are part of a group that is spread evenly, then you do
> >>worse if the districts are compact.  The problem is that philosophy
> >>that districts should be geographically based.
>
>Yes.
>
>	-Allen
>
>--
>Allen Smith, Ph.D.			 http://cesario.rutgers.edu/easmith/
>There is only one sound argument for democracy, and that is the argument
>that it is a crime for any man to hold himself out as better than other 
>men,
>and, above all, a most heinous offense for him to prove it. - H. L. Mencken
>----
>Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info