[EM] (2&3) Steve's 2nd and 3rd dialogue with Fred Gohlke

[steve bosworth]

From: stevebosworth at hotmail.com
To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com; fredgohlke at verizon.net
Subject: RE: (2) Steve's 2nd dialogue with Fred Gohlke
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 20:29:19 +0000





 
> From: election-methods-request at lists.electorama.com
> Subject: Election-Methods Digest, Vol 133, Issue 12
> To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
> > 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 14:40:53 -0400
> From: Fred Gohlke <fredgohlke at verizon.net>
> To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
> Subject: Re: [EM] Alexander Praetorius, regarding Frome, U.K.
> Message-ID: <55A7FAB5.5060406 at verizon.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Hi Fred, In your last paragraph in your most recent post, you write:  
> It is unfortunate that the many bright and thoughtful people who post on 
> this site do not think it worthwhile to help the Frome Town Council find 
> a way for every member of the community to help decide which of their 
> peers are the most attuned to the needs of the community and have the 
> qualities required to advocate the common good.
> 
> Fred Gohlke >>S:  However, I would ask you to consider how the following solution, i.e. it is a: 'Paper (or computer) ballot counting method which is most simply illustrated
by the face to face way the following imaginary village elects the 7
Members of its Village Council:
Imagine
that you are a citizen of this village and 15 of your fellow citizens
want to be elected.  To discover which 7 of the 15 are to be elected,
each candidate initially stands at a different place in the Village
Hall surrounded by the citizens who most favor him or her.  If more
than 7 candidates have such supporters, the one with the fewest is
eliminated.  Each of his or her supporters now moves to stand by
their 2nd
 
choice candidates.  This process continues until only 7 candidates
remain.  These 7 are elected. 


 

Each
of these 7 Members will have a ‘weighted vote’ in the Council
equal to the number of citizens standing by them at the end of the
count.    No citizen’s vote is wasted.  Each citizen’s vote will
continue to count in every decision made by the Council. Each citizen
has voted most positively.  If you participated in this election,
your concerns would be represented by the Member you trust most.2
  

Similarly
with APR, each vote would continue to count quantitatively by being
added to the weighted vote of the most favored representative each
citizen had helped to elect, i.e. this weighted vote would be exactly
equal to the number of electors who had rectly or indirectly ranked
this representative'.

>>S:  This is introductory paragraph in the article which I offered to send you earlier.  However, perhaps I neglected to send you my 2nd post to you as I had intended.  This post would help you make sense of this proposal.  Consequently, I have taken the liberty of adding the contents of that 2nd post to this 3rd post. I look forward to your replies. Steve2nd Post:
Thank you for your
reply.  I'll tag my responses with S:



F: re: "I would
like to understand exactly what you mean by the difference 
>
between 'internal and external proportionality'."
> 
>
External proportionality is the relatively static division of
political 
> interests, as reflected by party representation in
a legislature.
> 
> Internal proportionality is the
relatively dynamic division of political 
> interests as
reflected by the range of thoughts and feelings about the 
>
world around us that each of us carry within ourselves.



S: Using your
definitions, I see each person's somewhat different 'internal
proportionality' as what would guide each citizen as how to
participate or not in electing a rep, e.g. to choose which
candidate(s) to rank. This 'proportionality' is what I sometimes
refer to as a person's 'scale of values'.
> 
F:  re: "I
see the proportionality that could be guaranteed by APR (as 
>
mentioned) above my comments to James Gilmour) would offer what you
seem 
> to want: 'to choose representatives that represent the
entire community'."
> 
> Although I've seen your
comments about APR, I have no deep understanding 
> of the
method. As far as I've been able to tell, it is a way to weigh 
>
votes for party candidates. However, that is not what I'm concerned

> about. I'm concerned about the way influence on the
political process 
> is distributed throughout the community.
I, and many others like me, 
> are not members of, and do not
subscribe to the positions proclaimed by, 
> any party. Can you
tell me how much influence APR will give us on the 
> choice of
candidates for public office?
…............ how
does APR let non-partisans seek out the members of the community best
suited to lead it?



S: If APR already
existed in your country, and you only wanted to rank (vote for)
attractive candidates whose scale of values are closely matched with
your own 'internal proportionality', you could do this without
'joining' any organization, face to face.  You would do this as
follows:
During APR's primary
election you would rank (1,2,3, etc.) all the voluntary, social
organizations that had applied directly to elect their own rep(s)
during the next general election, i.e applied to the central
electoral commission to become and official electoral 'association'. 
These organization would presumably not only include all the existing
geographically defined associations (electoral districts) and
political parties, but also a number of nongeographically defined
organizations (e.g. interest groups: economic, religious, social,
environmental, etc.)You would rank these according to the degree to
which each organization seemed to mirror your own.    In any case,
you would, as a result, become a registered vote for general election
purposes through the surviving organization (i.e. association) that
you had ranked most highly.  You would expect that the candidates who
later would run to represent this organization would also have
similar aims and concerns to your own, and that at least one of them
would represent you very well in the legislative assembly.



For the general
election itself, the central electoral commission would ensure that
you would receive your official ballot at your most local polling
station, i.e. even if your official association and ballot is
different from the list of candidates for that local district.  Each
ballot paper originating from each association would also contain a
Section B which would also allow a voter to rank as few or as many
candidates seeking to represent associations other than the one in
which she is registered.  Consequently, you would rank as few or as
many of the hundreds of candidate in the whole country during the
general election as you might wish.  As a result, you would be
represented by the one elected candidate in the whole assembly you
had ranked most highly.  She would have a weighted vote in the
assembly exactly equal to the number of citizens who had elected her.
 If none of the candidates you ranked received enough votes to be
elected,  APR's ballot allows you to require your first choice but
eliminated candidate to transfer your vote to the weighted vote of
the elected candidate she favors most, e.g. the elected candidate
highest on her pre-declared list.



In this way, I see APR
as offering you 'the means to seek out and elect 
> those who
have the particular blend of qualities needed to address and 
>
resolve the issues that are of current concern'.
> 

What
do you think?
I
look forward to your feedback.
P.S.
If you wish, ask Steve to email you a copy of his more systematic
explanation of APR.



Steve
stevebosworth at hotmail.com



 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20150717/2861272f/attachment.htm>