[EM] Why proportional elections - Power arguments needed (Czech green party)

[Peter Zbornik]

Dear all,

just a post scriptum to the email below to make things clear:
I wonder if there is a short and to the point argument for dummies, why
proportional elections (say elections meeting the droop quota) leave the
voters happier than winner-takes it all elections.
This "for dummies" explanation of the advantages of proportional voting
could be combined with a longer technical explanation, perhaps using social
welfare functions. for people with time and interest to understand the
argument in full.

I don't mean that the argument above would be the best argument, but it
could be a really interesting one.

Best regards
Peter Zborník

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Peter Zbornik <pzbornik at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Kristoffer, dear readers,
>
> Kristofer, you wrote below: "A minor opinion within the party might need
> time to grow, and might in the end turn out to be significant, but using a
> winner-takes-it-all method quashes such minority opinions before they get
> the chance."
>
> Thanks, yes I have used this line of argument a lot (we actually have a
> global charter of the greens, according to which the greens are obliged
> to put the same principles into practice in thei organizations as they work
> for in society).
> The problem is, that this argument does not "stick", it is simply not sexy.
>
> Would it be possible to measure the "utility" or "happiness" among the
> voters in the party compared to different election methods. I saw you
> Kristofer did some work on this but I didn't understand it, I guess I lack
> the preliminaries.
>
> I guess the notion of "Bayesian regret" or something similar could be used
> to argue that proportional elections are better than block-voting, but I
> have no idea of how to explain this, as I don't know the subject at all
> (pareto optimal social allocations, or whatever).
>
> It seems intuitive that economic tools could be used (I know almost no
> economics), since ranked ballot elections simply are explicitly stated
> preference orderings.
>
> I guess that voting and elections, could be indeed one of the best
> imaginable real-world examples, where preference orderings of the
> actors actually are known, and thus all of the machinery of economic
> equilibria and social welfare functions could be applied (like the
> Bernoulli-Nash social welfare function).
>
> I am personally interested in the possiblity of measuring utility, is there
> some (preferably short) literature on social welfare, utility and voting
> theory for proportional elections (I know some undergrad maths and
> statistics)?
>
> Best regards
> Peter
>
>   On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <
> km-elmet at broadpark.no> wrote:
>
>> Peter Zbornik wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>  thank you for your help with the election system for the council
>>> elections of the green party.
>>> I will try to move on with technical testing of Schulze's methods and the
>>> specification of the elections to the party lists as soon as time allows.
>>> Thanks all for the support and all methods supplied.
>>> I never could imagine that I would get such a response.
>>> When advocating proportional elections in the party, I have found it
>>> difficult to explain to other members of the green party why proportional
>>> elections to our party organs is a good thing.
>>>
>>
>> As far as I remember, your party, the Czech Green Party, is a minor party.
>> Therefore, it might be possible to draw an analogy to the proportional
>> methods used by the Czech Republic itself. Without proportional
>> representation, the Green Party would have next to no chance of ever getting
>> into parliament. However, since your nation does use proportional
>> representation, there is some chance.
>>
>> The same argument could be used within the party. Since the Green Party is
>> a minor party, I reason that the party membership honestly believes the
>> presence of that party is a good thing. Thus, they would also know (to some
>> extent, at least), that minor groups of opinion - like their own party in
>> comparison to the major parties - can be good and can add valuable ideas to
>> governance. Then could not the same argument be used for the party itself? A
>> minor opinion within the party might need time to grow, and might in the end
>> turn out to be significant, but using a winner-takes-it-all method quashes
>> such minority opinions before they get the chance.
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20100519/fd2484d4/attachment-0004.htm>