[EM] LAP representation (district-based PR)

[Jameson Quinn]

- Name changed to "PAL representation"

- Note that this supplants PR-SODA as the "official" PR version of SODA
voting.

- Improved "advantages" section:

Advantages

   - *P*roportional


   - Thus, a large majority of voters have real representation


   - *A*ccountable


   - Voters, not party bureaucrats, decide which members of a given party
   get seated.


   - *L*ocal


   - Representatives know who is a constituent and voters know who is their
   representative.
   - Neighbors can organize to lobby their shared representatives.
   - Fair attention for local issues.


   - Prudent; not a radical change from single-member districts


   - If:


   - all votes are for one of the two main-party candidates in the voter's
   district,
   - all candidates approve everyone from their party
   - and the districts are divided fairly so that plurality would give a
   proportional result

... then PAL representation (like Balinski's "Fair Representation") gives
the same results as plurality. These assumptions will not generally be
perfectly true, but they will generally be close to true, so PAL
representation will give results that are recognizably similar to those of
single-member districts. It is hoped that this would make it a more
acceptable system to politicians who have won under single-winner rules. [
edit<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/index.php?title=PAL_representation&action=edit&section=3>
]Justification

PAL representation is inspired by Michel Balinski's "Fair Representation"
and by SODA voting <http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/SODA_voting>. From the
former, which is used for municipal elections in Belgium, it inherits the
combination of geographical districts and proportionality. However, unlike
Fair Representation, each candidate elected by PAL representation has
received (directly or indirectly) the same number of votes (except in rare,
unavoidable cases when there are not enough candidates who get that number
of votes). From SODA voting, PAL representation inherits the simple,
spoilproof ballot format and the optional vote delegation.

A modified version of STV is used as the proportional system for simplicity.
Other proportional systems (such as BTV [Bucklin Transferrable Vote]) would
also work. The equal ranking, and resulting fractional division of votes, is
necessary for three reasons. First, it allows for approval-style votes to be
counted without complicating the ballot. Second, it allows candidates to
exercise judgment independently from their party (disapproving of certain
party members), but keeps the voter's judgment as primary. If candidates
couldn't exercise judgment, parties would have to waste energy keeping out
"crazy" candidates who affiliate only because of the transfer votes they
might get. If candidates could fully-rank within the party, as would happen
if the PR system were standard STV, there would be too many opportunities
for logrolling, at a level of detail where voters wouldn't realistically
keep track or hold candidates accountable. Third, equal-ranking allows us to
claim that this system could, under reasonable circumstances, elect exactly
the same representatives as a non-gerrymandered single-member-district
system.

2011/10/23 Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>

> Here's the link for my newly-proposed PR system "LAP (Locally-Accountable
> Proportional) representation<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/LAP_representation#Advantages>".
> Comments and suggestions on rules or naming are welcome.
>
> Here's a copy of the page:
>
> LAP representation
>
> LAP (Locally-Accountable Proportional) representation is a system for
> electing a legislature, such that ballot secrecy is preserved but each voter
> can know who their representative is. Unlike with single-member districts
> (as currently used in the US and UK), an overwhelming majority (not just a
> little more than half) of voters will have a representative whom they've
> actually supported in some way. It is designed to be a gentle change from a
> single-member-district system, and districts can remain unchanged. Most
> representatives will represent multiple districts, and each district will
> have one representative from each represented party. For instance, if two
> parties divide the legislature 50:50, then each representative will have two
> districts and each district will have two representatives (one from each
> party). The basic idea is:
>
>    - Candidates pre-announce their rank-ordering of the parties (starting
>    with their own party) and may optionally approve/disapprove within each
>    party candidates. Their votes will never be transferred to disapproved
>    candidates.
>    - Voters may vote on the candidates in their or nearby districts, or
>    write in candidates from farther off. Votes are delegated by default but
>    optionally, voters may refuse to delegate or vote approval-style.
>    - Each delegated ballot is transformed into the pre-announced vote of
>    the candidate it supports.
>    - A legislature is elected by a version of STV<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/STV> (with
>    fractional transfers and a Droop quota.)
>    - Each district "drafts" one member of each elected party from the
>    elected slate.
>    - Your representative is the member of the party you voted for who is
>    representing your district.
>
> [edit<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/index.php?title=LAP_representation&action=edit&section=1>
> ]Full Procedure
>
>    - Candidates pre-announce their rank-ordering of the parties (starting
>    with their own party) and may optionally disapprove of any other candidates.
>    - Voters may vote on the candidates in their or nearby districts, or
>    write in candidates from farther off.
>
> First, to simplify the ballots, the population is separated into a
> "district" for each seat, and "districts" are grouped into sets of 2 or 3
> "co-districts". The ballot for each district lists the incumbents and
> candidates from that district in a larger font, and the candidates from its
> co-districts below that in a smaller font. Write-ins may be used to vote for
> candidates from other districts not listed on the ballot, so the districts
> only matter for ballot simplicity (Voters do not want to have a ballot with
> many dozens of candidates on it, but write-ins allow full freedom for those
> voters who want it). Larger parties will usually run one candidate per
> district; smaller parties may just run one candidate per co-district set.
>
>    - Each vote is transformed into the pre-announced party preference
>    order and individual approvals/disapprovals of the candidate it chooses.
>    - A legislature is elected by a version of STV<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/STV>
>    .
>
>
>    - Delegated votes first count full-weight for their chosen candidate.
>    Once that candidate is elected or eliminated, a vote is divided equally
>    among all non-disapproved, non-eliminated members of the top party remaining
>    on that ballot with any such members.
>    - Undelegated votes are divided equally among all approved,
>    non-eliminated candidates on that ballot.
>    - Any candidates who reach a Droop quota<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/index.php?title=Droop_quota&action=edit&redlink=1> are
>    immediately and simultaneously elected, and their ballots are reweighted to
>    eliminate a Droop quota.
>    - If there are no candidates who reach a Droop quota<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/index.php?title=Droop_quota&action=edit&redlink=1>,
>    the party with the fewest votes is identified, and the candidate from that
>    party with the fewest votes is eliminated. All votes for that candidate are
>    reassigned as outlined above.
>    - If the above finishes without electing a full slate, the last
>    candidate to be eliminated is elected.
>    - If there is still no full slate, the process is rerun from the
>    beginning (again electing the last candidate standing) until a full slate is
>    reached.
>
>
>    - Each district "drafts" one member of each elected party from the
>    elected slate.
>
> The draft proceeds as follows:
>
>    - First, each representative is drafted by their home district.
>    - From then on, the draft proceeds in descending order of votes. That
>    is, if more votes from district 1 go to candidate A than any other eligible
>    district:candidate pair, then A is drafted to that district.
>
>
>    - General rule: All representatives from a party must be drafted N
>    times before any representative from that party may be drafted N+1 times.
>    - General rule: No district may draft two representatives from the same
>    party.
>
>
>    - Your representative is the member of the party you voted for who is
>    representing your district. If no member of the party you voted for was
>    elected, then you may look at the public ballot of your chosen candidate to
>    see which of your district's representatives is yours.
>
> [edit<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/index.php?title=LAP_representation&action=edit&section=2>
> ]Advantages
>
>    - If:
>
>
>    - all votes are for one of the two main-party candidates in the voter's
>    district,
>    - all candidates approve everyone from their party
>    - and the districts are divided fairly so that plurality would give a
>    proportional result
>
> ... then LAP representation (like SODA-PR or Balinski's "Fair
> Representation") gives the same results as plurality. These assumptions will
> not generally be perfectly true, but they will generally be close to true,
> so LAP representation will give results that are recognizably similar to
> those of single-member districts. It is hoped that this would make it a more
> acceptable system to politicians who have won under single-winner rules. [
> edit<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/index.php?title=LAP_representation&action=edit&section=3>
> ]Justification
>
> A modified version of STV is used as the proportional system for
> simplicity. Other proportional systems (such as BTV [Bucklin Transferrable
> Vote]) would also work. The equal ranking, and resulting fractional division
> of votes, is necessary for three reasons. First, it allows for
> approval-style votes to be counted without complicating the ballot. Second,
> it allows candidates to exercise judgment independently from their party
> (disapproving of certain party members), but keeps the voter's judgment as
> primary. If candidates couldn't exercise judgment, parties would have to
> waste energy keeping out "crazy" candidates who affiliate only because of
> the transfer votes they might get. If candidates could fully-rank within the
> party, as would happen if the PR system were standard STV, there would be
> too many opportunities for logrolling, at a level of detail where voters
> wouldn't realistically keep track or hold candidates accountable. Third,
> equal-ranking allows us to claim that this system could, under reasonable
> circumstances, elect exactly the same representatives as a non-gerrymandered
> single-member-district system.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111023/5fcc6bd8/attachment-0002.htm>