[EM] Continuation of reply to David Wetzel

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

David:

MO: Sainte-Lague is the proportional PR.

You replied:

dlw:1. LR Hare is mathematically designed to minimize the absolute
value of the difference between the percent of the vote received and
the percent of the seats won by all of the parties in an election.

[endquote]

...maybe in comparison to Largest Remainder with other quotas then the Hare
quota, such as the Droop quota.

Let me repeat what I said in my first of these postings on this topic:

If you don't believe that Sainte-Lague is the most proportional PR method,
then I refer you to my web article on Sainte-Lague, at the Barnsdale website.
The URL, as I said, is probably: http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/vote/PR

I also refer you to a book entitled _Fair Representation_, by Balinski & Young.

(I'm not entirely certain that I've spelled "Balinski" correctly, but I probably
have).

But other than these few comments which I've already made, I don't discuss PR, because 1) It's obsolete; 
2) It's entirely unwinnable in the U.S. 

So, that's all I'm saying about PR. I refer you to my articles and to Balinski & Young.

MO:PR is unwinnable in the U.S, where electoral reform, in addition to
efforts for Proxy DD, should be about a better
single-winner method.

You wrote:

dlw: why is PR unwinnable in the US?  In 1870, we adopted 3-seat
quasi-PR for IL state representative elections.  It's an easy way to
kill lots of birds at once.

Answer 1: Ask people when they reject it. They do reject it.

Answer 2: They say that it would favor "special interests". What does that mean? 
I don't know. It doesn't matter.

Answer 3: PR amounts to a completely different electoral system to ask people to accept. A better single-winner
method is merely an, easily demonstrably, better way of doing what we already do. Big difference.

MO:Of course, with Proxy DD, all decisions will be single-winner
decisions, among all kinds of sets of alternatives.

You wrote:

dlw: Why then is Proxy DD what makes PR obsolete?

[endquote]

You, as a voter can vote on any issue or question that you want to. If you don't want to bother,
or if it's something not of interest to you, or if it's something that you aren't informed about,
then don't vote on it, and your vote will follow that of your designated proxy.

These proxies replace, and make obsolete, the representatives in PR. And your proxy will be entirely
of your choice.

Continually, initiative proposals could be offered to voters. You can "sign" or ignore any initiative
at any time. Continually, sufficiently-signed initiatives could be presented to voters, for a vote.
An initiative proposal could consist of one y/n proposal, or could be a choice among several alternatives.
The latter would be more frequent, since there are usually several ways of doing something, solving a problem,
etc. A good single-winner method would be used.

A voter could launch an initiative via the computer electoral system.

Initiatives could be given, by their proponent, a keyword, and offered, en-masse, under a keyword.

You could look at initiatives under keywords of interest to you.

If there are too many initiatives for feasibility, then, randomly, some could only be
sent to a small random subset of the voters, who would vote on which ones to send to the
general electorate for signing.

No, I haven't specified all the details.

I'll repeat a few things that I said before, in my other posting about this:

Voting could by by phone, or via a website. Voting would use an anonymous voter-ID number.

You go into the voting registration office, after first writing a random 20-digit decimal number on
a standard size piece of white computer paper, and fold it in half. 

In the office, having made out and submitted your registration form, you drop your number-paper into a slot
in a drum of similar folded number-papers, and turn the drum. No one will know which voter ID number
goes with which voter.

When voting by telephone or website, you use your anonymous voter ID number.

You can designate a proxy to vote for you on questions that you don't vote on. If you don't vote, the
system knows what proxy has been chosen for your particular anonymous voter ID number, and your vote
follows that of your proxy. If s/he doesn't vote on it either, then your vote goes with hirs, to hir proxy...etc
(unless you've indicated that you don't want that).

You could, alternatively, elect to use a ranking of proxies, where, if one proxy doesn't vote on an issue,
then your vote follows, instead that of the next proxy in your ranking of proxies.

As for fraud-security, I've assumed that that isn't a problem. Security safeguards could be added.

Mike Ossipoff