[EM] (no subject)

[James Gilmour]

Anthony O'Neal  > Sent: Sunday, November 01, 2009 7:12 AM
> I don't necessarily think that STV is better than an open party list 
> system.  

I think STV-PR is better than open-list party-list PR in three ways.

Firstly, STV-PR can be used in all public elections, including those that are non-partisan.
Secondly, STV-PR can deliver proportionality within individual political parties, where most open-list party-list systems will not.
Thirdly, and rather more politically, STV-PR can shift the balance of power away from the parties to the voters, IF the voters
decide to make than happen.


> But I'm a political realist, and I think that STV is the system 
> that would be easiest to implement in America.  With our loose coalition 
> Democrat and Republican parties, and our large base of independents, 
> people are too used to voting for the person and not the party to widely 
> accept a system that forces voting for a party.  Even if they do have a 
> large say in said party.

There are two other reasons why STV-PR might be the easiest to implement in situations where voters are used to voting in
single-member districts (the appalling British legacy!).  First is the simple practically of devising suitable STV multi-member
electoral districts based on existing, recognised communities.  Second is the voters' desire for a realistic element of local
representation as well as for broad proportionality.


> STV is proportional if people vote by party.  
> It is also proportional if people vote by eye color. 

Yes, and need not be "either or"  -  it can be "both and".  The voters can rank by party and then by eye colour.  Or the voters can
rank by eye colour and then by party.  With STV-PR the voters are free to base their rankings of the candidates on as many
dimensions as each voter wishes.

 
> It's main problem is that it's complicated as hell to explain, and the 
> opposition at the BC-STV referendum exploited this mercilessly. 

Yes, a great deal can be made of this, and was by the opponents of reform in BC, but it need not be so.

To obtain proportional representation we must elect several members together; each voter must have only one vote; and that vote must
be transferable.

The STV-PR counting procedure involves five basic steps:
1.  Once the total number of valid ballots has been counted, the minimum number of votes a candidate needs to be elected is
calculated - the 'threshold' or 'quota'. (This threshold is equivalent to the 'absolute majority' in a single-member electoral
district.)
2.  The ballots are sorted according to the first choices (rank #1) marked by the voters and the total number of first choice votes
for each candidate is counted.
3.  Any candidate whose vote equals or exceeds the threshold is elected.  If any candidate has more votes than the threshold, that
surplus above the threshold is transferred to remaining candidates in accordance with the second and later choices on the elected
candidate's ballots.
4.  If after the surpluses have been transferred some seats remain to be filled, the candidate with fewest votes is eliminated and
that candidate's votes are transferred in accordance with the second and later choices marked on the ballots.
5.  The transfers of votes continue, round by round, until all seats have been filled.


Of course, the detailed instructions for the Returning Officer are a little more complex than that, but again can be set out quite
simply, depending on the version of STV-PR adopted.  One merit of the version of STV-PR used for the local government elections in
Scotland in 2007 was the very simple principles.  All surpluses must be transferred, largest first.  Candidates with fewest votes
must be eliminated one at a time.  When any votes are to be transferred, all of the candidate's ballots must be transferred.  These
three principles greatly simplified the procedure, the regulations, the description and the explanation.  It all becomes
considerably more complicated when you have to make provision for deferring the transfer of small surpluses or for batch
eliminations of several candidates together or electing by sub-stages during eliminations.


> So the only real solution for proportional advocates seems to be to 
> either find a billionaire willing to support the cause of STV, or to 
> wait 100 years until Americas increasing polarization makes partisan 
> voting seems not seem so obscene.

I wouldn't be so pessimistic.  The more immediate targets should be those city councils and local boards that are very obviously
unrepresentative, especially those already elected "at large".  Some State legislatures might also provide realistic prospects for
reform.  Although elected by FPTP from single-member districts, the US House of Representatives is not as unrepresentative as most
assemblies elected in this way around the world (e.g. UK, Canada).  That's probably why Federal electoral reform is not higher up
the public agenda in the USA.

James Gilmour

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.698 / Virus Database: 270.14.40/2471 - Release Date: 10/31/09 07:53:00