[EM] APR (10): Steve?s 10th dialogue with Juho (Steve)
stevebosworth at hotmail.com
Fri Dec 19 08:14:23 PST 2014
APR (10): Steve?s 10th
dialogue with Juho (Steve)
From: election-methods-request at lists.electorama.com
> Subject: Election-Methods Digest, Vol 126, Issue 21
> To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 06:46:49 -0800
Re: APR (9): Steve?s 9th dialogue with Juho (Steve) (Juho Laatu)
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 16:46:44 +0200
> From: Juho Laatu <juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk>
> To: "election-methods at lists.electorama.com"
> <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
> Subject: Re: [EM] APR (9): Steve?s 9th dialogue with Juho (Steve)
> Message-ID: <38C0D0AD-FEA4-4530-AA21-51E6932791F1 at yahoo.co.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8">
> > On 16 Dec 2014, at 15:16, steve bosworth
<stevebosworth at hotmail.com> wrote:
J: The 10'000 is of course arbitrary since it is
not designed for any particular society. Each society should pick a number that
suits its needs.
S: Please formulate the method by which any
society could “pick” this number without being arbitrary. APR offers one answer to this question. Can you think of a better answer?
> "Proper party" means here a party that is well established and
that may have additional responsibilities and rights when compared to newly
formed lightweight associations that may or may not get seats in the election.
It is possible that a "proper party" need not collect supporter names
to get the right to nominate candidates (since it is already known to be big
enough to have that right).
S: I see this as too vague to allow our
discussion to progress.
> > J: No specific method in my mind.
> > S: The primary only determines how many reps will be elected from
each association. Only all the citizen?s votes in the country during the
general election will determine the weight that each reps? vote will have in
the assembly. Thus, neither the Primary nor the resulting associations could
prevent, for example, any rep from receiving many fewer than the average number
of weighted votes, i.e. when that is how citizens have voted in the general
election. Does this solve the relevant problem in your mind?
J: Since the outcome of the primary has a
meaningful impact on the outcome of the whole election, this does not solve my
problem. Vote buyers, coercers etc. may still have an interest to influence the
outcome of the primary.
S: It would be hard to predict this impact
because voters can reverse all expectations by secretly voting differently in
the general election. If so, do you have
any reason to believe that APR would be more vulnerable to such corruption than
> > > >
> > S: APR allows a citizen simply
to vote for one candidate if they see its other options as too complex.? Does
not this make APR as simple as other system for all citizens who want it to be
this simple? If you think not, please explain.
J: For example, methods that allow only
voting of one candidate are easier to understand.
S: Does the fact that APR allows citizens to
choose this simplicity rather than being forced into it provide a valid
argument against APR in your view?
J: I'm not proposing any alternative systems,
just discussing the properties of APR, and if those properties could be improved.
S: Unfortunately, you have not yet defined the
value you have in mind that would determine what would constitute an “improvement”. Can you do this now?
> > J: I don't have any "preferred system". Many systems do
guarantee approximate proportional representation. APR introduces some
additional exact mathematical nature to this. I don't think most voters require
exact mathematics but an overall understanding that the system is fair.
> > S: In comparison to APR, these other systems are not ?overall ?
fair?. How many citizens have you asked whether they would prefer a system that
would guarantee that their vote will continue to count? How many have answered,
J: I guess you have already noticed that
I'm not proposing any systems as alternatives to APR.
> > S: If you say that this ?participation ? may be popular?, does not
this suggest to you, therefore, that it should be tried?
J: I have said that in general I would
like to see some weighted vote systems tested somewhere.
> > J: ? The added complexity may also make some voters less interested.
> > S: Why would even those who do not want to participate in the primary
themselves want to deny it to others?
J: The society might prefer simple
methods (to offer simple and easy to understand methods to the voters).
Currently, at least, I am not satisfied
simply to leave these decisions to others, i.e. to ?society?.
> > S: Again, as explained earlier, APR offers ?simple and effortless
voting? for every citizen who may want it.
J: And a very difficult to understand
system to all.
S: Please explain or name the parts of APR that
you do not understand, or you believe ordinary citizens would find hard to
J: I see us as experts, discussing the
properties of APR. The decisions will be made by the societies (whose members
also we might be) that may take different methods into use. Maybe we can help
them in their decision making by providing good methods, and good explanations
on how they work.
S: Of course, I agree with this aim. However, I do not see how our dialogue can
make any further progress until you find yourself able to define what you mean
by “good methods”, what constitutes “improvements”, or are able to describe the
practical system that would also be your “ideal”.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Election-Methods