[EM] Census re-districting instead of PR for allocating seats to districts.

[Michael Ossipoff]

Juho:


>
> 2. You can vote for a party (or an independent running like a party) in a
> national party list PR election.
>
> Then, the number of seats won by a party, nationwide, in the local
> district elections is augmented to bring it up to the amount allocated to it
> in the national list PR election.
>
>
> My question was about your proposed STV based method that includes
> topping-up. It seems that the local (1.) and national (2.) votes are fully
> independent.
>
>
They are.

As for whether a candidate can run in hir district, and also nationwide, I
don't have an opinion on that. But it seems harmless--s/he can't be elected
to two seats.


>
>
>
> But the answer to your question is "No". You speak of "...an independent
> of Party P" . That is a contradiction in term. There is no such thing as an
> independent of a party.
>
>
> This gets a bit complex since I picked term "independent" (with quotes)
> from your mail. I thought that you referred to the idea of declaring some
> of the party candiates as independent for strategic reasons (that I
> discussed in the earlier mail).
>
>
We should say officially that "party independent" refers to a candidate who
is to all intents and purposes a party candidate, but whom a party
(probably strategically) asks to run as an independent.


>
>
>
> The following two paragraphs answer your concern:
>
> But your concern probably is that a party could deviously ask a candidate
> that they like, and who is, for all intents and purposes, a party candidate
> of theirs, to run as an independent, with no official party designation,
> and no mention of a party connection, by hir or the party.
>
>
> Yes, that's my concern. Except that I expect most party P voters to know
> very well that this candidate that pretends to be independent actually is
> set by party P. Most voters of this candidate would thus be supporters of
> party P. (And those voters would vote for party P in the national vote.)
>
>
I answered that concern. It's a concern that could be raised in regard to
any topping-up ("additional-member") system. And it's a concern that is
easily answered, as I answered it.

Every party P voter who nationally votes for the party independent doesn't
vote for P. If non-P voters vote for the party independent, it's because
s/he has appeal apart from P-ness.S/he deserves those votes therefore. So
what's the problem?


>
>
>
>
>
>
> But I interpret you again so that it is possible to cast a fully separate
> local vote (to an independent candidate) and a national vote (to party P
> (that is not formally associated with the candidate of the local vote)).
>
>
Quite so.That is the nature of a topping-up (additional-member) system.



>
>
>
>
> You continued:
>
>  will be elected, then party P is likely to get many representatives that
> are "independent", and the number of its "non-independent" representatives
> is smaller that its proportional share (that is derived from the national
> party votes), and therefore party P will get some extra seats in the top-up
> process. Party P will thus get its proportional share of the seats +
> several "independents" (that the method does not consider to be party P
> representatives, although in practice they are). That would mean that the
> method is vulnerable to running some candidates (likely winners) as
> "independents" to get more seats.
>
> [endquote]
>
> That's what you said before. Re-read the two paragraphs above that are
> immediately below the words, "The following two paragraphs answer your
> concerns."
>
>
> There was some confusion above since the terminology got mixed up. My
> question is still the same. Do you think that the strategy that I described
> applies to your proposed "local STV + national party vote" method? The
> strategy was that party P declares (deviously) some of its (well known)
> strong candidates as independent candidates in the election, and hopes this
> way to reduce the number of locally elected candidates that would be
> formally counted as party P candidates, and as a result the topping-up
> process would give party P additional seats.
>
>
It isn't a problem, for the reason that I stated in this posting and my
previous one.

Mike Ossipoff



>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120707/07f25695/attachment-0004.htm>