<div> <font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Again, sorry if there are ?'s where there shouldn't be.<br>

<br>

</font>From: James Gilmour <jgilmour@globalnet.co.uk><br>

> It is also an unsafe<br>

> assumption that every first preference vote for a<br>

> particular candidate is a "party vote" for that candidate's party.<br>

                                                                                                                                                            
<br>

I think this is a very important point.  Under PR-STV, the voters elect<br>

candidates not parties.  A popular candidate can get elected even if the<br>

party he is part of is not liked much (and likewise a less popular candidate<br>

from a popular party can end up not getting elected.)<br>

                                                                                                                                                            
<br>

Party list systems assume that there is only 1 type of voter and that voter<br>

votes purely based on party support.  However, in practice there is a mix<br>

of voters who vote based on candidate and voters who vote based on party.<br>

PR-STV allows both kinds of voters to vote the way they want to<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> and combines<br>

their vote in a fair way</font>.<br>

                                                                                                                                                            
<br>

> There is always a trade-off between guaranteed local representation (small<br>

> districts) and proportionality (large districts),<br>

> whatever the voting system.<br>

                                                                                                                                                            
<br>

Local representation isn't that important.  The benefit that is called<br>

'local representation' is the ability of the voters to directly control<br>

their representative.<br>

                                                                                                                                                            
<br>

Under a party list system, the voters exert control on a party and thus only<br>

indirectly on the members of the party.<br>

                                                                                                                                                            
<br>

Under PR-STV and single seaters, they voters exert control directly on the<br>

elected members.  Each member must personally get enough votes if he is to<br>

be elected.  The voters know specifically which candidate represents them.<br>

                                                                                                                                                            
<br>

> While STV-PR, as normally implemented, might reduce<br>

> the effective threshold to gain representation for<br>

> parties nationally,<br>

                                                                                                                                                            
<br>

I assume that you mean 'increase' not 'reduce'?<br>

                                                                                                                                                            
<br>

> that loss has to be set against the gains for the voters of<br>

> more localised representation and of shifting the<br>

> balance of power and accountability from the parties to the voters.<br>

                                                                                                                                                            
<br>

Right.<br>

                                                                                                                                                            
<br>

However, ignoring logistics, PR-STV with a single constituency would not<br>

have any tradeoff.  There would be (near) perfect PR and each voter would<br>

be directly represented by someone they choose.<br>

                                                                                                                                                            
<br>

The logistics ofc are the big problem.  I think a reasonable compromise would<br>

be to have local candidates only on the ballot and have spaces for write in<br>

codes for all candidates in the country.<br>

                                                                                                                                                            
<br>

Maybe, each candidate would be allowed to pick which polling stations that he<br>

is on the ballot for.  The limit could be polling stations covering around<br>

4-5 seats worth of voters.  This limit might be increased for candidates<br>

who were already elected or managed to reach a threshold in a previous election.<br>

                                                                                                                                                            
<br>

In effect, each candidate would create his own district.<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">, so gerrymandering becomes<br>

less relevant.<br>

</font><br>
</div>

<div> <br>
</div>

<div id="sig1483" style="clear: both;"><font>Raphfrk<br>
--------------------<br>
Interesting site<br>
"what if anyone could modify the laws"<br>
<br>
www.wikocracy.com</font></div>

<div> <br>
</div>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></font>

<div id='u8CAB5594D9914B7-1254-BE' class='aol_ad_footer'><FONT style="color: black; font: normal 10pt ARIAL, SAN-SERIF;"><HR style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px">The Famous, the Infamous, the Lame - in your browser. <A title="http://toolbar.aol.com/tmz/download.html?NCID=aolcmp00050000000014" href="http://toolbar.aol.com/tmz/download.html?NCID=aolcmp00050000000014" target="_blank">Get the TMZ Toolbar Now</A>!</FONT> </div>