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

[Jameson Quinn]

The whole point of having a representative body is that it represents the
diversity of an organization. It's not just a matter of diversity of
opinion; it's a diversity of strengths, of outlooks, of focus, which makes
the organization stronger than any one person. A non-proportional system
tends in the other direction, of electing N clones of the same bland
majority candidate. Selecting only for broad appeal means selecting only for
bland schmoozing; certainly a valuable skill in politics, but not the only
skill you want your party to cultivate.

Is that a good start?

Jameson Quinn

2010/5/19 Peter Zbornik <pzbornik at gmail.com>

> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20100519/0c1b9080/attachment-0004.htm>