[EM] Election layering effect (or why election-method reform is important)

[Richard Fobes]

On 4/27/2012 12:48 PM, Ted Stern wrote:
> On 27 Apr 2012 12:26:11 -0700, Richard Fobes wrote:
>>...
>> "Winning an election with less than half the votes might seem like a
>> small unfairness, but the effect is huge because of a layering
>> effect. Although each Congressman typically got a ballot mark from
>> about one out of two voters in the general election, he or she got a
>> ballot mark from only about one out of four voters (based on
>> cross-party counting) if the Congressman competed against a strong
>> candidate in the primary election. Another layer occurs because only
>> slightly more than half the members of Congress need to vote in favor
>> of a new law to get it passed, so just those Congressmen got ballot
>> marks from only about one out of eight U.S. voters, which is about 12%
>> of U.S. voters. Yet even more layers are involved because most
>> Congressmen first serve as state-level officials, and the state-level
>> election process similarly filters out the problem-solving leaders
>> that most voters want. Adding in two more layers to account for
>> mainstream-media influence and low voter turnout easily accounts for
>> how each law passed in Congress represents the desires of only 1% of
>> the U.S. population."
>>...
>> I'm interested in any ideas for how this concept can be explained more
>> clearly, especially if someone can think of an appropriate analogy or
>> metaphor or diagram.
>>
>
> Here's an analogy:
>
>         The task is to approximate the number 0.4445 to the
>         nearest integer.
>
>         If you start by rounding to the nearest thousandth, you get
>         0.445.
>
>         If you then round to the nearest hundredth, you get 0.45.
>
>         If you then round to the nearest tenth, you then get 0.5.
>
>         Then if you round to the nearest integer, you get 1.
>
>         But 0.4445 is closer to zero than one, so you end up being
>         wrong by more than one-half.
>
> Ted

I like this analogy.  It does not amplify enough, yet it prompted me to 
think of this idea:

We tend to think of politics as a pyramid that has our few-in-number 
leaders at the top, and the numerous voters at the bottom who support 
the leaders through voting.

In contrast, an upside-down pyramid might be more realistic.  Each layer 
in the pyramid corresponds to one of the layers mentioned above.  At the 
bottom are the few voters who marked on their primary-election ballot 
support for the Congressmen who voted (as part of a majority) to pass a 
new law. I'm still working out how best to draw it, yet this seems like 
a useful path to clarify the importance of election-method reform.

Thanks!

On 4/28/2012 10:52 AM, Stéphane Rouillon wrote:
> ...
> With an STV election, 3 seats in a single super-district, let's
assume ...
> ...
> Typically STV produces a global individual satisfaction rates around
> twice FPTP rates for the simulations
> I have made yet...
> ...
> This does not covers the layering effect of multiple representative
> levels, but it emphasizes the mismatch
> between the will of electors and the results.
>
> Stéphane Rouillon

Yes, proportional methods reduce the number of wasted votes (which can 
be defined in various ways).  Yet, as you say, this does not address the 
layering effect.  Nevertheless, thank you for your ideas.

Richard Fobes