[EM] Bob--PR reply

[Michael Ossipoff]

Bob:

Referring to my text, copied below, you wrote:

> This does not accomplish what PR accomplishes. In fact, it does the
opposite --
> over-represents the largest plurality at the expense of everybody else.
How can
> you think otherwise?

I don't. I quite agree. If it accomplished what PR accomplishes, then it
would _be_ PR. In comparing my multiwinnner suggestion with PR, I
distinguished it from PR. I never meant to imply that my suggestion was PR.

But no, my suggestion does _not_ over-represent the largest Plurality at the
expense of everyone else. It would if I were proposing Plurality. I've been
saying that Plurality isn't any good, and that Approval should be used
instead. 

In an N-seat at-large election, my suggestion would elect the N candidates
who get the most "Approved" ratings. From the perspective of someone who
wants PR, that would "over-represent" the most liked parties. Ok, what's
wrong with "over-representing" the most liked parties? Who says we have to
let un-liked parties into Congress because they are preferred by 5% of the
population?

But, as I said, though I think that Approval would be better than PR, I
don't object strongly to PR. Even if the political diversity of PR isn't
needed at all, when we're genuinely electing the most liked candidates, and
even if it isn't my favorite choice, PR would be ok.

Mike Ossipoff


> -----Original Message-----
> From: election-methods-bounces at lists.electorama.com [mailto:election- 
> methods-bounces at lists.electorama.com] On Behalf Of Bob Richard
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2012 10:42 AM
> To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
> Subject: Re: [EM] Gerrymandering solutions.
> 
> On 6/4/2012 10:18 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> > 2. Whatever can be accomplished by PR can be accomplished by an 
> > at-large single winner election, because every single winner method 
> > can output a ranking of candidates instead of just one winner: Elect 
> > the winner. Then delete the winner from the ballots and count them 
> > again. That will elect the rank 2 winner. Then eliminate the rank 2 
> > winner too, and count the ballots again. Each time, delete every 
> > previous winner before counting to determine the next winner. So you 
> > can elect N winners at large in a state, or nationally, for a body 
> > such as Congress (or its separate houses, if you want to keep them) 
> > or a state legislature. Of course, with Approval, it only requires 
> > one
count, and
> you elect the N candidates with the most approvals.
> 
> This does not accomplish what PR accomplishes. In fact, it does the
opposite --
> over-represents the largest plurality at the expense of everybody else.
How can
> you think otherwise?
> 
> --Bob Richard
> 
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list 
> info