[EM] STV vs Party-list PR, could context matter?
jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk
Fri Feb 17 10:01:55 PST 2012
But why would you want all these differences and complications?
If you are going to use STV-PR for some of these elections, why not use STV-PR for all of these elections to the various
"representative assemblies" (councils, state legislatures, US House of Representatives, US Senate). STV-PR works OK in both
partisan and non-partisan elections, so it should give fair and proper representation of the VOTERS in all these different
Of course, with districts returning only 3 to 5 members, the proportionality and direct representation MAY be a little limited, but
if small numbers are needed to make the system acceptable to the vested interests, then so be it. STV-PR with 3, 4 or 5 member
districts is greatly to be preferred to plurality in single-member districts and to plurality at large. We had to accept local
government wards electing only 3 or 4 councillors as part of our STV-PR package - that's practical politics. But that reform has
transformed our local government - no more "one-party states".
> -----Original Message-----
> From: election-methods-bounces at lists.electorama.com
> [mailto:election-methods-bounces at lists.electorama.com] On
> Behalf Of David L Wetzell
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 2:49 PM
> To: EM
> Subject: [EM] STV vs Party-list PR, could context matter?
> 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.
More information about the Election-Methods