[EM] PR for USA or UK

[Jameson Quinn]

2011/7/24 Juho Laatu <juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk>

> On 23.7.2011, at 17.45, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>
> > We had a discussion about the best practical single-winner proposal,
> which, while it certainly wasn't as conclusive as I'd hoped, seemed
> productive to me. I think we should have a similar discussion about PR.
> >
> > Obviously, the situations in the UK and in the USA are very different in
> this regard. The UK is, as far as I know, the origin of the PR movement (in
> the 1860s and 1870s, liberals gained seats disproportionately as the
> franchise was extended, and Conservatives looked for a "fairer" system to
> recoup their losses). And it's part of Europe, where people have experience
> with PR. But both the UK and the US currently elect their principal
> representative bodies by district-based FPTP/plurality.
> >
> > And so I'd like to suggest that we should be looking for a PR system
> which satisfies the following criteria:
> >
> > 1. Truly proportional (of course). I would be willing to support a
> not-truly-proportional system, but I'm not everyone. Egregious compromises
> on this issue will simply reduce the activist base, to no benefit.
>
> What is a not-truly-proportional system? That could range from being close
> to proportional (=> only few seats difference to full PR) to being close to
> what the system is today in the USA (=> gives one or two seats to third
> parties).
>

I was thinking of things like limited vote as somewhat-proportional systems.
These would be an improvement, but the activist base for these half-measure
reforms is I think always smaller than that of true PR.


>
> > 2. Includes a geographical aspect. People are attached to the "local
> representation" feature of FPTP, whether that's rational or not.
>
> That may well make sense also in a PR system. Proportional geographical
> representation is a different and separate target, not necessarily a relic.
>

Note that SODA-PR is not perfect here. It would tend to elect about one
candidate per district, but there would be a possibility that some districts
would get 2 and some would get 0.


>
> > 3. No "closed list". A party should not be able to completely shield any
> member from the voters. In general, voter power is preferable to party
> power, insofar as it's compatible with the next criterion.
> > 4. Simple ballots. A reasonably-thorough voter should not have to mark
> more than, say, 5 candidates or options, and an average ballot should not
> list more than 20 candidates or options. Those are extreme limits; simpler
> is better, all the way down to around 7 options (of which only around half
> will be salient and/or viable).
>
> I hope you don't assume that all the candidates must be listed on the
> ballot. One could have also ballots where the voters write the number(s) of
> their favourite candidate. That approach allows high number of candidates.
>
> Let's say that there are 100 seats. In a fully proportional system a
> "party" with more than 1% support would be entitled to one seat. If you want
> the voters to decide who wins instead of letting the party decide you need
> several candidates to choose from. Let's say that this party has 5
> candidates. If other parties have similar rights to nominate candidates you
> could end up having e.g. 100*5 candidates. That is not an exact formula and
> I ignored the impact of districts, but the point is that if you want to
> support small parties and ability to select from multiple candidates the
> total number of candidates and the total number of candidates per district
> may grow large. Does number 20 above limit the number of candidates per
> district?
>

I understand that large numbers like this are possible; that's the reason
for this criterion. A system (like SODA-PR) which allows legal, useful votes
for the full candidate set, but which only explicitly lists some
 (district-based) subset on any given ballot, would pass this criterion in
my view.


>
> > 5. Ideally, the smoothest transition possible. If existing single-winner
> districts can be used unchanged, all the better.
>
> Having both pure single-winner districts (not e.g. MMP) and full PR is
> possible but then you have to accept considerable inaccuracy in electing the
> most liked candidate in each district. I guess what you are looking for is a
> good balance between these incompatible (but positive) requirements. Maybe
> this is one reason why you would accept also less than perfect PR.
>

I said I'd personally accept it, but it's not what I'm looking for in this
thread. But yes, it's a balancing act here.


>  > 6. Insofar as it's compatible with the criteria above, greater freedom
> in voting is better. For instance, if ballots are printed with only
> in-district candidates, a system which allows out-of-district write-ins is
> better than one which doesn't, all other things being equal.
>
> Is the old American tradition of allowing write-in candidates included in
> your list of requirements?
>

No. In this case the write-in capability is a way to list fewer candidates
than the full allowed set, as a way to simplify the ballot. I use the term
"write-in" because in the US it is assumed that this will be allowed. In the
UK, you'd probably say "out-of-district by-name" or something instead of
"write-in".


>
> >
> > My proposal for SODA-PR satisfies and surpasses all 5 criteria. Other
> systems which do reasonably well:
> > -I've seen a proposal for single-member districts and open party lists.
> This is similar to my SODA-PR system, except that it requires that all
> candidates in a party approve the same party set. As such, it is strictly
> worse on criterion 3, without being notably better on any of the other
> criteria. It is more conventional, though.
> > -Multimember districts, with some system inside each district.
> > -Mixed member systems.
>
> One possible approach (with accurate PR) is to first allocate the seats to
> parties at national level and then allocate those seats to (probably
> multimember) districts (in a geographically proportional way).
>
> One approach that allows high number of candidates and simple ballots is to
> allow voters to rank candidates of one single party in one single region
> only. One may also limit the maximum number of ranked candidates heavily
> since that vote will support the correct party anyway (with its full
> strength of one vote).
>
> Is party internal proportionality a requirement or would e.g. basic open
> lists do?


intraparty PR is better, but open lists are enough.


> (And if you want party internal proportionality, would trees or candidate
> given preference order (without option for voter given preference order, as
> in SODA) be enough, or do you require any voter given preference order to be
> supported?)
>

Again, the more the better, as long as it balances with other criteria.

JQ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110724/83625a34/attachment.htm>