[EM] (2): UK 'post mortem', 2nd discussion between Steve and Fred Gohlke

[steve bosworth]

(2):  UK 'post mortem', 2nd discussion between
Steve and Fred Gohlke




> From:
election-methods-request at lists.electorama.com
> Subject:
Election-Methods Digest, Vol 132, Issue 14
> To:
election-methods at lists.electorama.com
> Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015
12:01:57 -0700
> 
…......................................



Hi Fred,



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/20150624/cfccbf77/attachment.htm>