Bryan Mills bmills at alumni.cmu.edu
Wed Feb 1 22:24:06 PST 2012

> Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 23:26:47 -0600
> From: Ken & Karla <kbearman at isd.net>
> To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
> Subject: Re: [EM] STV+AV
> Message-ID: <4F2A1E97.8080802 at isd.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120201/80db7c3a/attachment-0001.htm
> >

For a start, please configure your mail client to send plain-text or
plain-text + HTML; HTML-only doesn't show up in the digest and then I have
to post-process it to quote it.

> given that US law requires single-winner FPTP

> elections for federal representation and the major parties (who

> control the legislature and benefit greatly from FPTP) have no

> incentive to change that law.

> [Ken B.]  That is incorrect; I know of no such law.  Each state
> can specify its own method of electing its federal
> representatives.
> (If there is such a federal law, please cite it.)

Single-winner is required by 2 USC Sec. 2c:

> [...] there shall be established by law a number of
> districts equal to the number of Representatives to which such
> State is so entitled, and Representatives shall be elected only
> from districts so established, no district to elect more than one
> Representative [...]

I can't find a proper citation for requiring FPTP in the source where I saw
it; that part may be mistaken.  So that might might admit the possibility
of using an alternative single-winner method within districts, but it's not
at all clear to me that that would help significantly given the
susceptibility of single-winner districts to gerrymandering.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120202/508dad4f/attachment-0004.htm>

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list