[EM] No geographical districts

[Stéphane Rouillon]

Hello James,

(for other readers , please let me state again that, in my humble opinion, 
STV family of electoral systems are the best multi-winner methods "on the 
market" actually. However, it should not stop us from criticizing aspects we 
think could be enhanced. It is not because you have a radio and a 
photographic apparel that you should not try to invent TV...).

Yes most electors would be very content with much less than proportionality 
at the limit
because they are convinced they have to sacrifice something else to obtain 
it
(local representation for some, government stability, access to a 
representative,...).
No one has ever presented them with an option that conciliate all these 
goals.
Several demand a guaranteed local representation (although this demand is a 
lot stronger in rural areas not urban ones). But we all already have a 
municipal level that is based on geographical management and can facilitate 
access to a local representative.

Thus:
-I want to push the proportionnality limit to obtain a true representation 
of the electorate.
I can cope with the stability problems that could occur using other tools, 
like the crutch option for example.
- I want a large number of candidates because the more option you get as a 
voter, the more ideas you can choose among and the more representative is 
the result of the election.
-I want list built for a party from the electoral result of the voters would 
expressed a preference for that party. Thus, no party oligarchy can impose a 
hierarchy to its supporters and still individual imputability plays a role 
because we would vote for somebody and not for a "cause".

STV or STV-PR with one big district would give me these properties, but I 
try to get rid of the
problems it produces. Am I logical enough?

For the purpose of presenting different debates per district, I see very 
well putting each debate onthe web, on a political youtube. Thus speech time 
and not money would have  to be fairly
attributed.

And finally about the real world issue, it seems it all comes to how we see 
the world. I am very proud of having a municipal level which solves most of 
my geographical problems (removing the snow, taking the garbagge, giving 
access to a library, managing street parking,...).  However,
my major concerns go through boundaries most of the time (SRAS, hurricanes, 
acid rain, animals,
epidemia, religions, ideas, money, inflation, planes, violence on tv, bombs, 
terrorists, free trade products, gay weddings, abortion, drug legalisation, 
add as much actuality major issue you like...) . Virtual districts would fit 
better the real world.  I want my vote to reflect the real world in which I 
live, by assessing that major debates are now some that concern the overall 
planet.
Having representatives elected from non-geographical districts does not 
remove their geographical link. We all come from somewhere we know well. It 
just removes their geographical dependance about being elected or not. 
Governing is taking decisions. We want defendors of the options and neutral 
judges to choose between them like in a justice court. How can we expect our 
current system to behave properly when MP's have to do both! Defendors 
should be elected from a ground territory to defend the rights of the people 
they know well.  Judges should have no link to take decisions in the best 
interest for all. Hence, decision takers (country representatives) should be 
elected from non-geographical districts.

The real world now spreads ideas all around the globe in a minute like I am 
doing right now.
Distance is less and less relevant. We should adapt our political structures 
to this reality.

Thanks for taking the time to read,
Stéphane.

>From: "James Gilmour" <jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk>
>Reply-To: jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk
>To: <election-methods at electorama.com>
>Subject: Re: [EM] No geographical districts
>Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 12:06:10 +0100
>
>Stéphane Rouillon  > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 6:03 AM
> > STV-PR suffers from three principal problems that are exacerbated when
> > trying to push the proportionality limit.
>
>Why would you want to try "to push the proportionality limit"?  The law of 
>diminishing returns applies to representation and
>proportionality, as I said in a recent EM post under another topic heading. 
>  The available evidence from countries with a history of
>FPTP elections from single-member districts (UK, USA, Canada) indicates 
>that real electors would be very content with much less than
>proportionality at the limit  -  indeed, they would demand such a  
>trade-off in return for guaranteed local representation.  In any
>event, proportionality at the limit would bring its own political problems 
>and so would be undesirable and unwanted for that reason
>alone.
>
>
> > They are all caused  by the large
> > number of candidates:
>
>Why need the numbers of candidates be large?  Of course, to some electors 
>who are used to single-member districts contested for
>decades by only two parties, any number greater than two might be 
>considered "large".  In my experience such comments usually come
>from those who are completely opposed to any reform of FPTP in 
>single-member districts, but I know that group does not include
>Stéphane.  Such comments do, however, play into the hands of the 
>anti-reformers.
>
>
> > 1) A pre-selection occurs within each party, in order for the
> > star candidate of each party to get elected, that star often tries to 
>kill concurrency
> > having bad collegues running with him or none at all in order
> > to increase its own election probability;
>
>If the districts are of a size that would give an acceptable balance 
>between proportionality and guaranteed local representation,
>all the major parties would want to promote teams of candidates because 
>they would have realistic chances of winning more than one
>seat.  So while the "star" might well want to behave like a prima donna, 
>any party that allowed that to determine its team of
>candidates would be heading for electoral disaster.  Also, internal party 
>democracy should prevail.
>
>
> > 2) It is hard to make fair debates when the number of candidates is huge 
>and
> > they are not even the same for several parties: in the end the 
>candidates
> > having the most means (money and visibility) have the opportunity of 
>getting
> > heard and the others may simply not;
>
>Why would the numbers of candidates necessarily be "huge"?  The issues 
>arising from the availability of money have nothing to do
>with the voting system.  To level the democracy playing field, there 
>clearly has to be reform (limitation) of the money that can be
>spent by parties and by candidates during any election campaign  -  though 
>I can see such limitation being extremely unpopular in
>the USA.  However, we could do much to reduce the impact of those 
>differences by using a voting system that gave proportional
>representation of the voters.
>
>
> > 3) voters complain about the large number of names on the ballot adding
> > several undesirable behaviours like random completion or following a 
>party
> > pre-selection.
>
>Why would there be large numbers of names on the ballot?   I agree that 
>random selection might be considered an undesirable
>behaviour (though some have suggested random selection would be better than 
>selection by election!), but I don't think it is for you
>or me to say that a voter who has knowingly followed his or her favoured 
>party's selection has engaged in an undesirable behaviour.
>Indeed, it could be said to be an extremely rational behviour.
>
>
> > Equivalent virtual districts have no such problems: they allow comparing 
>all
> > candidates with every party proposing a unique candidacy per district. 
>The
> > result is you can obtain PR results like using only one district for 
>STV-PR,
> > without the previous problems.
>
>Virtual districts may not have the three problems you specified, but they 
>do have one real problem:  real electors live (and vote)
>in the real world - they do not live in a virtual world.  They want their 
>votes to reflect the real world in which they live, by
>giving an acceptable balance between proportional representation of 
>differing political viewpoints and local representation of the
>geographically recognisable communities within which they live.
>
>James Gilmour
>
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG.
>Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.6.16/1650 - Release Date: 03/09/2008 
>16:13
>
>
>----
>Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info