[EM] (Kevin Venzke) and Richard Fobes.

Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_elmet at lavabit.com
Fri Feb 24 13:01:10 PST 2012

On 02/23/2012 11:24 PM, Richard Fobes wrote:
> Kristofer Munsterhjelm asks: "... why do you propose rules that would
> make it harder for third parties to grow?" ...
> What I promote is VoteFair ranking. It includes a PR-related portion --
> called VoteFair partial-proportional ranking -- that gives
> representation to third parties that represent enough voters. This
> aspect of VoteFair ranking specifically makes it easier (not harder) for
> third parties to grow.

Yes, proportional representation would make it easier for third parties 
to grow. On the other hand, in an earlier post, you suggested STV (which 
is a PR method and thus one would expect to have the same purpose as the 
VoteFair ranking) be used with two seats instead of three or five.

In a five-seat district, assuming Droop proportionality, any group of 
more than a sixth of the voters can give their candidate a seat. 
However, in a two-seat district, the group has to grow to exceed a third 
of the voters to be sure of getting that seat; thus, smaller groups 
could be splintered (either maliciously by gerrymandering or simply due 
to bad luck), if there are few seats.

Since the quota constitutes a sort of effective threshold, a two-seat 
system would make it harder for a party to grow than would a five-seat 
system, since the party would have to become a lot larger before 
starting to win seats. Not as hard as in a single district system, of 
course, but that's not much of a compliment.

You could compensate for the disproportionality on the local level with 
proportionality on a greater level, like MMP does, but then you couldn't 
use the "start small and locally" strategy because the compensation 
mechanism would have to be present from the start.

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list