[EM] (Kevin Venzke) and Richard Fobes.

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

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.