<HTML><BODY>
<div> Dharma wrote:<br>

> > <span class="correction" id="">raphfrk</span> at <span class="correction" id="">netscape</span>.net [<span class="correction" id="">mailto</span>:<span class="correction" id="">raphfrk</span> at <span class="correction" id="">netscape</span>.net]<br>

><br>

> Dharma (subscribed lists) wrote:<br>

><br>

> > What are the views on this sort of electoral system - is it proportional<br>

> > representation or disproportional.<br>

><br>

> << the top 2 parties gets 40% of the seats each and the the 3rd party gets<br>

> 20% >><br>

><br>

> D: Yes. And we never truly know the number of electors in each party.  That<br>

> is A could fluctuate around 30+/-10 and so on.  Isn't it proportional if the<br>

> number of electors in each group actually do reflect the numbers actually<br>

> elected as representatives.?  Otherwise it is disproportional.<br>

                                                                                                                                                           
 <br>

Well, it would be proportion in terms of seats allocated but not proportional<br>

in terms of power.<br>

                                                                                                                                                           
 <br>

><br>

> > 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>

><br>

> Not necessarily.  Say there are 3 ethic groups as the basis of the<br>

> assigning.  The number of electors in each group is below and as are the<br>

> voting proportions.  So groups A, B, C are different ethnic groups within a<br>

> particular association.<br>

                                                                                                                                                           
 <br>

<span class="correction" id="">Ahh</span>, so electors = voters ?  I was confused, I though you were talking<br>

about something like the electoral college, where electors are elected<br>

by the voters.<br>

                                                                                                                                                           
 <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>

> Did  you mean group B?<br>

<br>

</div>

<div> Yeah, right.<br>

                                                                                                                                                           
 <br>

I think the issue with something like this is that it <span class="correction" id="">crystalised</span> the power state<br>

when the country is formed.  How would it work anyway, would a voter have to<br>

specify what faction they were a part of (or would it be ethnic?) and then they<br>

only get to vote for that faction?<br>

                                                                                                                                                           
 <br>

<span class="correction" id="">OTOH</span>, it does mean that the country doesn't go unstable if demographics change.<br>

For example, if a country was 40%, 40% and 20% as you suggest, then there is<br>

balance of power.  However, if one faction has a higher birth rate and gets to<br>

50%, then suddenly, there could be tyranny of the majority.  Having a rule that<br>

all parties will have a certain power acts as a check against that.  Also, it<br>

would prevent something like a faction try to encourage mass immigration from<br>

a <span class="correction" id="">neighbouring</span> country.  <br>

<br>

A similar effect can be achieved by having a super-majority requirement.  If a 2/3<br>

majority is required to pass legislation, then <span class="correction" id="">tryanny</span> of the majority is <span class="correction" id="">alot</span> more<br>

difficult to pull off.  Also,  it means that you don't need to code ethnic <br>

discrimination into the core laws of the society.<br>

<br>

<br>

</div>

<div style="clear: both;"><span class="correction" id="">Raphfrk</span><br>
--------------------<br>
Interesting site<br>
"what if anyone could modify the laws"<br>
<br>
<span class="correction" id="">www</span>.<span class="correction" id="">wikocracy</span>.<span class="correction" id="">com</span></div>

<div> </div>
 <!-- end of AOLMsgPart_4_efad9c50-45d2-46ee-9266-5efb2c570487 -->


<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>