[EM] Proportional, Accountable, Local (PAL) representation: isn't this a big deal?
Jameson Quinn
jameson.quinn at gmail.com
Tue Oct 25 05:32:40 PDT 2011
Yesterday I posted two messages to the Election Methods list about PAL
representation <http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/PAL_representation>, a new
PR system designed as a replacement for single-member districts. The system
combines elements from STV, Balinski's "Fair Representation", and SODA.
Basically nothing in the system as I described it was in itself a new idea.
My goal was not to create an innovative system, but to blend existing ideas
to find a proportional system that would be acceptable to all existing
interests, including voters, theorists/activists like us, incumbent
politicians, and parties.
I believe that a system like this is *the only kind of PR that could
pass*in a US environment,
and also well-suited to the UK. I'm a little discouraged that a development
I regard as truly important got no comment from the list.
So I'm writing another message. My excuse is that I've thought of one
additional rule for the system, a way to make a party threshold that's fair
to independent candidates<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/PAL_representation#Optional_party_threshold>.
Also, I've expanded and rewritten the article (included at bottom here).
Why could no other system PR system pass in the US? (These arguments also
might apply to other single-member-district countries such as the UK or
Australia, but I can't say for sure.)
- A closed list system would be (rightly) attacked as a power grab by
party bureaucrats. Voters have been souring on parties for decades now, and
they wouldn't stand for that.
- A global open-list system such as STV would have unacceptably-complex
ballots. Who can keep track of dozens of candidates, let alone fully rank
them?
- A districtless system would be too radical a change. People are used to
having "their" representative.
- Note that PAL has one representative per party for each district.
Each representative is associated with multiple districts. So your
representative is the one from your party from your district. If
you voted
for a party that got no seats, your vote was probably transferred to a
"backup" party according to a preference order you assented to,
so you still
probably have a representative. ("probably" because up to a
Droop quota of
voters have no representative.)
- A multimember-district system helps with the above problems, but
doesn't actually solve them. Who wants a system where ballots are only a
little bit too complex, where you only sort of know who your representative
is, and which is only mostly proportional?
- A mixed member system is an ugly hybrid. To me, US democratic ideals
are too egalitarian to accept that there could be two different kinds of
representative.
- More seriously, a mixed member system would be totally unacceptable to
existing incumbents, as it would draw too many of them out of their existing
districts. And I actually think this is in part a valid concern. The public
interest is to have representatives who are accountable, not complacent; but
I see no value in change for change's sake.
- Balinski's "Fair Majority
Voting<http://mathaware.org/mam/08/EliminateGerrymandering.pdf>",
as used in Belgian municipal elections, resolves all of the concerns above,
but it would be very hard to justify the fact that some representatives
would lose with a majority vote. It's very hard to respond to a simple
question like "Why should my opponent win with 45%, when I lose with 52%?"
with a complex answer about party balance and compensating for
gerrymandering.
- Note that PAL representation would actually give the same result as
FMV, but would provide an easy justification for that result.
Responding to
the question above, you could say: "Each representative needs exactly the
same number of votes to win. Your opponent got the vote transfers they
needed to reach that threshold and you didn't. Those votes were
transferred
in accordance with the explicit will of the voters, and to
ignore them would
be to disenfranchise those voters."
(Random note: I did the math for how many people in the US would be part of
the unrepresented leftover droop quotas in a state-by-state PR system. The
answer is around 20%. If you assume that most elected representatives got a
bit more than the quota, so that the unrepresented fragment is only 2/3 the
size of the represented fragments (in line with a 60% average margin in
single-member districts; the actual US average varies between 60-70%), then
18% would be unrepresented nationwide. If the unrepresented fragment is 1/2
the size of the represented one, 16% would be unrepresented nationwide.)
.........
*Here's the current version of the electorama
article<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/PAL_representation> on
PAL representation:*
PAL (Proportional, Accountable, Local) representation is a system for
electing a proportionally-representative legislature. It's designed to be a
gentle change from a single-member-district system; districts can remain
unchanged, and *if single-member districts are giving fair proportions from
cohesive parties, PAL representation will elect exactly the same members*.
The difference is that most representatives will represent multiple
districts, and each district will have multiple representatives (one from
each winning party). This allows each voter to know who their representative
is, while preserving ballot secrecy. Thus, whereas currently only 60-70% of
US voters voted for their representative, and many of those because they
have no real choice, with PAL voting over 80% overall, and over 95% in large
states, would be guaranteed have a representative whom they'd supported
directly or indirectly.
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.
Contents [hide]
- 1 Full Procedure<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/PAL_representation#Full_Procedure>
- 1.1 Optional party
threshold<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/PAL_representation#Optional_party_threshold>
- 2 Sample Ballot<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/PAL_representation#Sample_Ballot>
- 3 Example <http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/PAL_representation#Example>
- 4 Advantages<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/PAL_representation#Advantages>
- 4.1 P <http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/PAL_representation#P>
- 4.2 A <http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/PAL_representation#A>
- 4.3 L <http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/PAL_representation#L>
- 5 Justification<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/PAL_representation#Justification>
[edit<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/index.php?title=PAL_representation&action=edit§ion=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 modified version of
STV<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/STV>,
using the following steps:
1. The iteration number I is set to 1. (Higher iteration numbers mean
lower quotas. The process will be run from scratch with an increasing
iteration number until a full slate of candidates reaches the quota)
2. The quota Q is set to the Droop
Quota<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/index.php?title=Droop_Quota&action=edit&redlink=1>;
that is, to the rational number (V+1)/(S+I), where V is valid votes and S is
seats.
3. 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.
4. Undelegated votes are divided equally among all approved,
non-eliminated candidates on that ballot.
5. Any candidates who reach the quota are immediately and simultaneously
elected, and their ballots are reweighted to eliminate a Droop quota.
6. If there are no candidates who reach the quota, 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.
7. If the above finishes without electing a full slate, the process
starts from scratch with a lower quota:
- All ballots are reweighted to 1
- All elected representatives return to being hopeful candidates
- The iteration number is increased by 1. This reduces the quota Q, as
if it were the Droop quota for a legislature one seat bigger.
- The counting process is rerun from scratch, starting with step 3.
8. 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. Eligibility
rules are as follows:
- All representatives from a party must be drafted N times before any
representative from that party may be drafted N+1 times.
- 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=PAL_representation&action=edit§ion=2>
]Optional party threshold
Optionally, one additional rule can be added to modify step 5 above:
- No representative may be elected unless their party got at least T
votes, where T is some party threshold.
This would encourage small parties to join into coalitions, and thus promote
a less-fragmented legislature. There are various options for T. It could be
as high as 5%, similar to the 5% threshold used in the German parliament. Or
it could be as low as V/(S+I-1) (that is, V/S, if the process completes in
just one iteration); this would actually allow independent candidates to be
their own "party", but only if they have enough support to fully deserve one
of the S seats.
This rule complicates the system somewhat, so it is not recommended if the
PAL representation is to be implemented by a voter referendum. If the system
is being passed by a legislature, they may be more concerned about
fragmentation, so they could use a relatively-high 5% threshold. And if the
system is implemented by a constitutional convention, a V/(S+I-1) threshold
is ideally fair.
[edit<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/index.php?title=PAL_representation&action=edit§ion=3>
]Sample Ballot
*District 5 ballot*
*Vote for one candidate to delegate your vote, or otherwise vote for as many
candidates as you approve:*
▢ *John Adams* (Yellow Party, district 5) (Prefers Yellow Party except for
Zapatero)
▢ *Michelle Bachelet* (Silver Party, district 5) (Prefers Silver Party, then
Purple Party)
▢ *Winston Churchill* (Purple Party, district 5) (Prefers Purple Party, then
Silver Party except for Yarrow)
▢ Alfred Deakin (Yellow Party, district 6) (Prefers Yellow Party then Silver
party except for Yarrow)
▢ John Edwards (Silver Party, district 6) (Prefers Silver Party then Purple
party)
▢ *Vicente Fox* (Orange Party, district 6) (Prefers Orange Party then Silver
party)
▢ Inder Gujral (Yellow Party, district 4) (Prefers Yellow Party)
▢ Stephen Harper (Silver Party, district 4) (Prefers Silver Party)
▢ ________________________(write-in)
▢ ________________________(write-in)
*If you only vote for one candidate who does not win, your vote may help
elect that candidate's preferences, unless you check the box below:*
▢ Do not delegate.
*Note: When you vote for just one candidate, you are delegating your vote to
him or her. This allows your vote to help elect a similar candidate if your
favorite cannot win. Your vote will never go to a candidate who is not in
your favorite's declared preferences listed above.*
*If you vote for more than one candidate, or if you vote for a candidate
with no declared preferences, your vote is not delegated. In that case, it
does not matter whether you check the "do not delegate" box above.*
[edit<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/index.php?title=PAL_representation&action=edit§ion=4>
]Example
[image: Tennessee's four cities are spread throughout the
state]<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/File:Tennessee_map_for_voting_example.svg>
Imagine that Tennessee is having an election on where to locate 3 public
universities. The population of Tennessee is concentrated around its four
major cities, which are spread throughout the state. For this example,
suppose that the entire
electorate<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/index.php?title=Electorate&action=edit&redlink=1>
lives
in these four cities, and that everyone wants to live as near as many
universities as possible.
The candidate sites for the university are:
- Memphis <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memphis> on Wikipedia, the
state's largest city, with 42% of the voters, but located far from the other
cities
- Site 1
- Site 2
- Nashville <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nashville> on Wikipedia, with
26% of the voters, near the center of Tennessee
- The "Eastern Party", composed of:
- Knoxville <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville> on Wikipedia, with
17% of the voters
- Chattanooga <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chattanooga> on Wikipedia,
with 15% of the voters
The preferences of the voters would be divided like this:
42% of voters
(close to Memphis) 26% of voters
(close to Nashville) 15% of voters
(close to Chattanooga) 17% of voters
(close to Knoxville)
1. *Memphis 1*
2. Rest of Memphis party:
- Memphis 2
3. Nashville
4. Eastern party
- Chattanooga
- (Knoxville not approved)
1. *Nashville*
2. Eastern party:
- Chattanooga
- Knoxville
3. Memphis party
1. *Chattanooga*
2. Rest of Eastern Party:
- Knoxville
3. Nashville
4. Memphis party
1. *Knoxville*
2. Rest of Eastern Party:
- Chattanooga
3. Nashville
4. Memphis party
The quota is (100.0008%/(3+1))=25.0002% (The small fraction represents one
extra virtual voter, to ensure that the quota cannot be met by four
different sites). Since both Memphis (site 1) and Nashville are over the
quota, both are elected first. Memphis votes are multiplied by 17/42 and
transferred to Memphis site 2, and Nashville votes are multiplied by 1/26
and then split evenly between Chatanooga and Knoxville. Totals are now:
- (Memphis 1: 25.0002% (elected))
- Memphis 2: ~17% (actually 16.9998%)
- (Nashville: 25.0002% (elected))
- Chatanooga: ~15.5% (actually, 15.4999%)
- Knoxville: ~17.5% (actually 17.4999%)
The party with the fewest remaining votes is the Memphis party. Within that
party, Memphis 2 is the site with the fewest votes (in fact, the only
remaining site), so even though it has more votes than Chatanooga, Memphis 2
is eliminated. The votes are pass over the already-elected Nashville to
tranfer to the Eastern party. Within that party, Memphis disapproved
Knoxville, so the full total is transferred to Chatanooga. Chatanooga now
has ~32.5%, more than the 25% quota, so it is the third and final site.
If Knoxville had not joined a party with Chatanooga, then Chatanooga would
have been eliminated, and Knoxville would have been the final site. But
Chatanooga could have responded by threatening to prefer a second Nashville
site, or even Memphis 2, over Knoxville, if Knoxville would not cooperate in
the Eastern party. In the end, Knoxville's strategy may or may not have
worked. In general, such strategic gamesmanship would be less profitable and
more dangerous in a real election, with more seats overall as well as a
significant degree of polling uncertainty.
[edit<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/index.php?title=PAL_representation&action=edit§ion=5>
]Advantages [edit<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/index.php?title=PAL_representation&action=edit§ion=6>
]P
- Proportional
- Thus, a large majority of voters have real representation
- Each representative is elected with the same number of votes.
- Prudent; not a radical change from single-member districts
- No redistricting necessary
- 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§ion=7>
]A
- Accountable
- Voters, not party bureaucrats, decide which members of a given party
get seated.
- Since the total votes needed for election is higher, the "margin of
victory" is reduced. There are no safe, gerrymandered seats where corrupt
representatives can hide.
[edit<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/index.php?title=PAL_representation&action=edit§ion=8>
]L
- Local
- 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.
[edit<http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/index.php?title=PAL_representation&action=edit§ion=9>
]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. 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 might also work (although a non-LNH system might
put perverse incentives on candidates). 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/20111025/9b9b3cee/attachment-0003.htm>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list