<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=496441902-22102006><FONT face=Arial><FONT
color=#0000ff><FONT size=2><SPAN class=484525311-23102006>This would be my
conclusion that the system (below) </SPAN>creates a disproportionate voting
system, not a proportionate voting system. In fact, it is a system of
weightage, as it can give more seats than actually match the proportionate
numbers in a category in the electoral
college. </FONT></FONT></FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=496441902-22102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=496441902-22102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>There is only proportion if there are 24:24:12 persons (or
higher number of persons, but in same ratio) in each category of the
electoral college, and no one can guarantee that this will always be so, let
alone where anyone may even be categorised in the first place, or who is going
to do the categorization. </FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=496441902-22102006></SPAN><SPAN
class=496441902-22102006><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=496441902-22102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>24:24:12 will give you 2:2:1 but clearly if there are
actually 30:20:10 persons in each category, still it is intended to produce
2:2:1 (when it should be producing 3:2:1), then there is a disproportionate
voting system for some, and weightage in favour of minorities. Same if there are
35:20:5 - it does not give 2:2:1 - so it is disproportionate - but still they
want the votes to come out 2:2:1 (when it should be 7:4:1). Ultimately
when the numbers do not stack up, someone is really taking advantage
of someone else's portion of the election rights. To cloak the real
facts - ie what the statistics are on the ground - the artificiality of 3
groupifications is invented pretending they represent 2:2:1, when that may not
even be the truth when one actually counts the real figures. No one knows
that the numbers in the 3 groupifications will always actually be in
ratio 2:2:1 (or even within the 5% margin of error acceptable in
statistics) and no one will know or be able to judge in the
future.</FONT></SPAN></DIV></DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> raphfrk@netscape.net
[mailto:raphfrk@netscape.net] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, 9 October 2006 8:50
PM<BR><B>To:</B> election-methods@electorama.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [EM]
Disproportionate or proportionate representation system<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<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></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>