<HTML><BODY>Dharma (subscribed lists) wrote:<br>
<br>
> What are the views on this sort of electoral system - is it proportional<span style="font-family: monospace;"><br>
> </span>representation or disproportional.<br>
<br>
<< the top 2 parties gets 40% of the seats each and the the 3rd party gets 20% >><br>
<pre>> The result, assuming the following numbers of electors:<br>
><br>
> A - 30<br>
> B - 90<br>
> C - 15<br>
<br>
Are the electors assigned in proportion to the popular support for the<br>
parties?<br>
<br>
> A - 30 get a percentage of 24/60 votes<br>
> B - 90 get a percentage of 24/60 votes<br>
> C - 15 get a percentage of 12/60 votes<br>
> <br>
> Then reducing each down to one person<br>
><br>
> A - 1 person gets 1.333% of the election rights<br>
> B - 1 person gets 0.444% of the election rights<br>
> C - 1 person gets 1.333% of the election rights<br>
><br>
> The vote of a B is worth only 1/3rd of any other vote.<br>
<br>
Right, this gives less voting power to electors from group A.<br>
<br>
However, this is not necessarily a bad thing. For example, party<br>
A might assign 90 electors even though it has only 40% of the <br>
popular vote. In effect, each party would decide if it wants lots<br>
of low power representatives or a small number of high power <br>
representatives. I doubt that is what you meant though ?<br>
<br>
However, an issue with the suggestion is that it gives all 3<br>
parties equal power if they block vote. Any two parties will<br>
have 50%+ of the vote. This means that even though party C is<br>
the weakest party, it gets equal say to the other 2. If the <br>
top 2 parties don't maintain party discipline, then party <span class="correction" id="">C's</span><br>
power is somewhat diminished as in a free vote, co-operation <br>
between the top 2 parties is improved.<br>
<br>
What is the reason for suggesting this system ? I assume it is<br>
to <span class="correction" id="">guarantee</span> that a 3rd party exists, or is it to ensure that no<br>
party gets an outright majority ?<br>
<br>
(assuming that it won't defeat the purpose)<br>
What about having the rule <span class="correction" id="">recognising</span> when a party gets an outright <br>
majority.<br>
<br>
A is the largest party. B is next and C is 3rd largest.<br>
<br>
Voters can vote for any party, but only the top 3 parties gets any seats.<br>
<br>
if A gets > 50%, the split is:<br>
<br>
A: 55%<br>
B: 30%<br>
C: 15%<br>
<br>
If A gets more than 1/3 and <= 50%<br>
<br>
A: 45%<br>
B: 35%<br>
C: 25%<br>
<br>
If A gets < 1/3 (can only happen with a 4th party "spoiling")<br>
<br>
A: 35%<br>
B: 33%<br>
C: 32%<br>
<br>
Such a system isn't very fair on the 4th party. Also, proportional<br>
systems can ensure that a party gets an exact percentage to match its <br>
popular support.<br>
<br>
I think something like asset voting, <span class="correction" id="">PR-STV</span> or even the open party <br>
list method would be better. They all allow more parties to exist<br>
than 3.<br>
<br>
I think that preventing 1 party from dominating is best served<br>
by having a system that allows multiple parties to exist rather than<br>
force it . However, ideally, the voting system should not <br>
<span class="correction" id="">recognise</span> the <span class="correction" id="">existance</span> of parties at all.<br>
</pre>
<div class="AOLPromoFooter">
<hr style="margin-top:10px;" />
<a href="http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100122638x1081283466x1074645346/aol?redir=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eaim%2Ecom%2Ffun%2Fmail%2F" target="_blank"><b>Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail</b></a> -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.<br />
</div>
</BODY></HTML>