[EM] Preferential Party List Method Proposal

[Greg Nisbet]

> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 00:32:14 +0100
> From: "James Gilmour" <jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk>
> To: <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
> Subject: Re: [EM] Preferential Party List Method Proposal
> Message-ID: <1E8F1DC34EB34C50A49239C7C1BA6CCB at u2amd>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
> Greg Nisbet  > Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2011 10:25 PM
> > All current forms of party list proportional representation
> > have each voter cast a vote for a single party. I say this is
> > inadequate since a small party can be eliminated and hence
> > denied any representation (this is particularly relevant if
> > the legislature has a threshold). However, votes for a party
> > that doesn't have sufficient support to win any seats in the
> > legislature are simply wasted.
>
> Not necessarily so.  See "apparentement".  Parties can "chain" their votes
> so that fewer votes are wasted in the seat allocation
> calculations.
>
> James Gilmour
>

Apparentement as it were (or even panachage, as the Swiss allow), still are
not the same type of method as the type I propose. Apparentement, as I am
now aware exists, is solely at the discretion of the parties, and thus
doesn't reflect the wishes of the voters directly, and as such cannot
truthfully be called a "preferential allocation method" since it does not
allow the expression of arbitrary preferences and panachage is too
candidate-centric and not flexible enough to be a method of the same ilk as
the one I propose. I thank you for educating me on this matter, but believe
I am nevertheless technically correct (at least by a reasonable definition
of "preferential method").
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110813/fc9ecb19/attachment-0003.htm>