[EM] Real Democracy (1): Steve 1st dialogue with Stephane Rouillon

Tue Jul 21 19:55:59 PDT 2015

Hello Steve,

1) The whole document is available from 
http://citation.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/9/9/3/9/pages199397/p199397-1.php
to 
http://citation.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/9/9/3/9/pages199397/p199397-10.php
You can copy (Ctrl-C) any of the 10 pages in a text document...

2) I will read your APR document as soon I find which software opens 
.odt document...

For the moment I can only give some comments on your APR comparison. I 
am sorry if it sounds negative but it is not. I just want more details 
about the few differences between APR and SPPA:

3) Does APR "geographically or non-geographically defined voluntary 
organizations (e.g. political parties, interest groups)" /that/ "will be 
officially recognized as electoral 'associations" prevent
outsiders to infiltrate artificially an electoral 'associations? Like 
partisan of a mainstream idea that would decide to sink another debate 
using their strong majority...? Lets suppose that massive
supporters of gay weddings want to dilute a more 50%-50% debate about 
adoption froms homosexual parents (just an example). Would APR detect 
organized infiltration movements?

4) What happens if a very low number of APR representatives controls a 
majority (more than 50%) of the parliament voices? Oligarchy?

5) SPPA garantees a stable bipartite coalition around the main political 
parties, despite balanced national split supports like 30%, 18%, 17%, 
14%, 11% and 10%.
In such a case, it would boost the main party to 50% and reduce the 
mandate to 3/7 of tis original length to ensure fairness. How does APR 
handle unstable splits?

6) How do you organize fair debates when a voter can choose between a 
huge amount of candidates?

It might take some time before I comment: plenty of work...
S. Rouillon

Le 2015-07-21 19:53, steve bosworth a écrit :
>
> *
> *
>
>
> > From: election-methods-request at lists.electorama.com
> > Subject: Election-Methods Digest, Vol 133, Issue 17
> > To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
> > Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2015 12:01:59 -0700
> > .............................
> > 1. Real Democracy (St?phane Rouillon)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 23:09:04 -0400
> > From: St?phane Rouillon <stephane.rouillon at sympatico.ca>
> > To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com 
> <mailto:election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
>
> > Subject: [EM] Real Democracy (1):  Steve 1st dialogue with Stephane 
> Rouillon
>
>
> > Message-ID: <BLU437-SMTP1063BACDACEABF3872910208F860 at phx.gbl>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
> >
>
>
> Stephane Rouillon wrote:
> >
> >R: I do not know if you would find it real democracy, but SPPA is what I
> > have to offer best...
> > 
> http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/9/9/3/9/p199397_index.html
> > http://votebook.ca/pdf/SPPAforMPSA13042007.pdf
> >
> > Dr Rouillon.
> >
>
>
> >>Steve (S): I have studied your very useful but brief 
> bullet-point-type-presentation of SPPA. Thank you. I hope you will 
> send me more details, partly in response to my following points and 
> suggestions.
>
>
> Our aims and values seem to be almost identical. Therefore, if you 
> have the time, I would appreciate it if you would study my article 
> ('Equal Voting Sustained') to see whether or not Associational 
> Proportional Representation (APR) might not serve your aims even more 
> completely than your current version of SPPA. I will send you (or 
> anyone else) this article separately upon request.
>
>
> For example, with regard to your list of SPPA's benefits, APR would 
> seem to compare as follows:
>
>
>  *
>
>     still needs only one visit to the polling station: Yes.
>
>  *
>
>     maintains the accountability link with elected members: Yes.
>
>  *
>
>     gathers sincere preferences: Yes.
>
>  *
>
>     allows ordering of the issues by the electorate: APR allows this
>     to some extent during its 'primary election' which determines
>     which geographically or non-geographically defined voluntary
>     organizations (e.g. political parties, interest groups) will be
>     officially recognized as electoral 'associations'. At the same
>     time, each citizen chooses through which one she will rank as few
>     or as many candidates in the whole country as she might wish
>     during the later general election.
>
>  *
>
>     reduces the antagonism between candidates: APR candidates would
>     have every incentive both to be very clear and exact about her own
>     scale of values and policy proposals, and to negotiate, even with
>     opponents, any compromises necessary, to achieve agreements (e.g.
>     to help form a majority coalition) to legislate at least some of
>     her policy goals.
>
>  *
>
>     vanishes vote splitting issues: APR give no incentive (or
>     possibility) to split votes.
>
>  *
>
>     raises the individual approbation rate of elected members: Each
>     APR rep will have a 'weighted vote' in the legislative assembly
>     exactly equal to the number of citizens who have helped her to be
>     elected -- no vote is wasted and continues into the assembly.
>
>  *
>
>     treats all candidates equally (independents included)! Completely!
>     For example, 'independents' could either form an 'association' by
>     themselves, or seek to represent any association's agenda that any
>     of them might favor.
>
>  *
>
>     eliminates the democratic deficit: Completely!
>
>  *
>
>     treats all political parties equally (no quota): Completely!
>
>  *
>
>     gives to every voter the same weight: Completely!
>
>  *
>
>     elects party-line builder: Yes, if this refers to the building and
>     sustaining of a working majority coalition (and also its
>     government in a parliamentary system).
>
>  *
>
>     guarantees stable coalitions of two parties: see previous response.
>
>  *
>
>     guarantees twice the number of MPs in the worst case: No, APR
>     guarantees only the exact proportional election of the
>     pre-established number of MPs.
>
>  *
>
>     preserves learning [about] a small number of candidates to vote
>     [for]: If she wishes, APR allows a citizen to vote for only one
>     candidate in the country. Alternatively, she can rank as few or as
>     many candidates in the whole country as she might wish.
>
>  *
>
>     reduces strategic nominations: Completely!
>
>  *
>
>     hinders bribing electorate [for]support: as much as possible.
>
>  *
>
>     avoids regional confrontation: APR provides alternatives to
>     regional conflicts yet would allow any such conflicts to be
>     represented, i.e. exactly in proportion to the number of citizens
>     who care most about them.
>
>  *
>
>     eliminates gerrymandering: Completely!
>
>
> To facilitate any of our future discussions, it might sometime be 
> helpful if I could 'cut and paste' some of your words (like the above) 
> to comment upon them. Thus, might it be possible for you separately to 
> email me your relevant SPPA works in a suitable [?Word?] format so 
> that I could do this?
>
> I look forward to your feedback.
>
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20150721/8439f414/attachment-0001.htm>