<HTML><BODY style="word-wrap: break-word; -khtml-nbsp-mode: space; -khtml-line-break: after-white-space; "><DIV><DIV>On Jul 8, 2006, at 9:26 AM, James Gilmour wrote:</DIV><BR class="Apple-interchange-newline"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><BLOCKQUOTE type="cite"><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 10.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">Brian Olson Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 8:53 AM</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 10.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">I still think I want a bicameral legislature with one<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN></FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 10.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">districted body and one PR/proxy/asset body.</FONT></P> </BLOCKQUOTE><P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px"><BR></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">If you want a bicameral legislature, why would you want one chamber elected so that it is unrepresentative of those who</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">voted for its members?<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>You can have both districts and PR for the same chamber.<SPAN class="Apple-converted-space"> </SPAN>Of course, you cannot have</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">single-member districts and PR, but STV-PR offers a good compromise of effective local representation (in modestly sized</FONT></P> <P style="margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px"><FONT face="Helvetica" size="3" style="font: 12.0px Helvetica">multi-member districts) and overall PR.</FONT></P> </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><DIV>Single member districts still have some benefits. They're well understood. The practice of having a local representative who interacts with constituents is well established. And I think that some issues really do still have a local or regional basis which makes sense to take account of by geographic representation. They're easy.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>To have meaningful PR we need at least 5 seats per election? To do this we can either merge districts in sets of 5 or grow the size of the legislative body (by up to 5 times its current size). Some legislatures and many districts are already too large. But I guess both of those don't often happen in the same place so maybe by choosing one or the other growth it could be made to work acceptably.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>By splitting the representation methods, having a fully at-large undistricted PR body and an anti-gerrymandered local representation districted body, I think both representation styles are covered and there isn't a need to hybridize them.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>Perhaps part of the problem with districts is that it needs to be made clear to representatives that it is their duty to represent _everyone_ in their district and not just the people who voted for them.</DIV><BR><BR><DIV> <DIV>Brian Olson</DIV><DIV><A href="http://bolson.org">http://bolson.org</A>/</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV> </DIV><BR></BODY></HTML>