<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Jul 17, 2008, at 18:38 , <a href="mailto:raphfrk@netscape.net">raphfrk@netscape.net</a> wrote:</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite">> I can see three different local/personal representation concepts here. (just to clarify my thoughts, and maybe help some others too) <br> <br> I think a better way of breaking down those options would be based on the how the seats are allocated. <br> The whole regional/national/district issue is separate. Ofc, for single seaters, it has to be district based.<br> <br> The main issue is the party list vs PR-STV question.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>My naming of the three concepts was quite confusing. Another way to name them is 1) direct and and known official link between the representative and a set of voters, 2) regional proportionality and 3) personally selected representative (typically secret, known only by the voter).</div><div><br></div><div>I left political/ideological/party proportionality out for the most part and focused only on the regional proportionality and established links between the voter and the representative.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite">The problem is that a party list system breaks <br>the link between the candidate and the elected member. Party members must remain loyal to the <br>party as the party has all the power.</blockquote><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#0000DD"><br></font></div></div><div>(Diego Santos already noted that open lists keep some clear links between the voters and the candidates.)</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite">However, even if you didn't vote for him. He will still likely try to help you.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes. In some set-ups one could considered it to be a benefit of the system not to have a fixed/known relationship between the voters and representatives.</div><div><br></div><div>...STV-PR...</div><blockquote type="cite">larger parties not wanting to <br> increase the average number of seats per district.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>This sounds like an intentional threshold (implemented using small size districts).</div><div><br></div><div>Juho</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></body></html>