[EM] STV vs Party-list PR, could context matter?

[David L Wetzell]

It seems to me that a common sense solution would be to base which gets
used on the propensity for voters to be informed about the elections.

Also, the two types seem to be bundled with different types of quotas.  STV
gets marketed with the droop quota here in the US.  I'm not complaining
because it's good to simplify things.  But if STV were bundled with Droop
then 3-seat LR Hare might prove handy to make sure that 3rd parties get a
constructive role to play in US politics.

So I propose that 3-5 seat STV with a droop quota, perhaps using AV in a
first step to simplify and shorten the vote-counting and transferring
process, for US congressional elections or city council elections and
3-seat LR Hare for state representative and aldermen elections.  The latter
two elections are less important and get less media coverage and voter
attention.  Is it reasonable to expect voters to rank multiple candidates
in an election where they often simply vote their party line?  Why not keep
it simple and use the mix of Droop and Hare quotas to both keep the
system's duopolistic tendencies and to make the duopoly contested?

It seems to me that most folks think the choice is between ranked choices
or party-list PR.  I think it is a matter of context and that both can be
useful, especially when no explicit party-list is required for a 3-seat LR
Hare election.  The vice-candidates who would hold the extra seats a party
wins could either be selected after the victory or specified before hand.

So what do you think?

I'm keeping the seat numbers down because I accept that those in power
aren't going to want an EU multi-party system and I'm not sure they're
wrong about that, plus the US is used to voting the candidate and having
their representative and they could keep that if there are relatively few
seats per election.

dlw
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120217/23fe4cca/attachment-0003.htm>