[EM] No geographical districts

[Raph Frank]

On 9/4/08, Stéphane Rouillon <stephane.rouillon at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 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.

Self chosen districts can work in many ways.  If they are completely
free, you are right.  The optimal for a majority group is to spread
out evenly and win them all.

If you assign by birth date, you get near perfect spreading out by
default.  A majority party will likely end up with a majority in every
district.  It even neutralises any geographic variation in the State.

One option would be to allow the group itself decide who can and who
can't join their district.  For example, it could be based on a
candidate or committee.  They get to vet any potential new members.
Perhaps, any group of at least 11 people could form a committee and
register as a 'seed' district.  Also, the might have the right to kick
members they don't like.

Unless another party managed to infiltrate the group so that a
majority of its members were for the other party, any infiltration
just means that they have less people in their own groups.

For example,

1) 6 months before election day, the N largest district groups are
'locked-in'.

2) For another 3 months people are allowed to register to change from
their district to another one, as long as their district is to large
and the target is to small (or they weren't in a district and want to
join a small one).

3) 3 months before the election, all the districts that are still to
large have random members reduced to make them the right size and
unassigned people are then randomly assigned to the small districts to
make them large enough.

4) Each district then selects a winner using approval voting

The randomness wouldn't necessarily have to be random.  It could use
some fixed method to decide the ordering.  For example, it could be
based on social security number and date of birth.  You could pass
them into a function that re-orders them.

Also, the prcesses weakens the secret ballot as district formation
becomes part of the process and it isn't secret.

>  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.

It comes down to what you think representation is.  That is
representing their district at the national level.  It isn't bribing
anyone, it is getting them what they want.  What if an area has no
hospital and nobody seems to care because they are concerned about the
national issues?

I think single seat districts aren't a good idea anyway.  Most
modifications are just a hack to a broken system.

>  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 might be that people who meet the criteria get some benefit in any
hospital.  Also, if 'everyone' is doing it, then it might be less
frowned upon.

>  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.

Party list PR is designed to do this.  Everyone represents the whole country.

It gives lots of power to the party leader though.

My thoughrs on the whole national representation thing is to have
multiple layers of representatives.  In the US, it might work as

A) 30 elected in six districts (districts of ~50 million (10 mill per seat))
B) 100 elected in 20 districts (districts of ~15 million (3 mill per seat))
C)  300 elected in 60 districts (districts of ~5 million (1 mill per seat))

This districts would end up crossing State lines.  One option is that
C is designed so that it doesn't.  Small States would just have
smaller districts.  A State with 2 Representatives would just hold a 2
seat election.

The A) and B) districts would need to cross State lines for sure.
This would require a constitutional amendment.

This creates a mix of national level, regional level and State level
representatives.

If you wanted to get fancy, you might give group A) Representatives 4
votes, group B) 2 votes and group C) 1 votes.  This is to take into
account that an A) representative represents a larger number of
voters.