<WBR>Juho wrote:<br>
<br>
> 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. 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.<br>
<br>
> (under national PR-STV) <br>
> - the representatives do not know which voters voted for them (the voters can thus <br>
> contact any representative (that is the name as none:-)) as "their own") <br>
<br>
I don't entirely agree. I think the most likely outcome of implementing national level PR-STV<br>
would be that each candidate would set up his home base in a certain area. Most of his <br>
votes would come from people who live near him. If you live far away, you are much less <br>
likely to be one of his supporters. This is especially true if the ballot access rules apply and <br>
you are outside the area that he appeared on the ballot.<br>
<br>
However, even if you didn't vote for him. He will still likely try to help you. Most people <br>
with a problem would become a consistant voter for the person who solved it for them. Even if<br>
it is only 50%, if he helps 100 people, he gets another 50 secure first preferences.<br>
<br>
Every vote counts so he doesn't care if you are on the other side of the country. However,<br>
if you are on the other side of the country, then it may be harder for him to help as he <br>
doesn't know as much about the local area (or who to contact about your issue) and also<br>
it might be harder for you to vote for him. <br>
<br>
Also, parties will likely split the country up into 'territory' for each of their candidates. So,<br>
you would be referred to one of the local members of that party.<br>
<br>
Each TD in Ireland builds up a 'personal vote' throughout his career. This can be pretty<br>
significant. Some popular candidates can achieve around 2 quotas of votes due to being<br>
personally popular.<br>
<br>
> Note that the needs of close relationship between a representative and his/her voters<br>
> regional proportionality and ability to vote without being bound by the party structure <br>
> or by the districts are all quite separate targets. <br>
<br>
I think that PR-STV achieves 2 of them pretty well. The national level proportionality is<br>
not currently possible due to logistics and also due to larger parties not wanting to <br>
increase the average number of seats per district.<br>
<br>
> Note that there is a strong correlation between candidates that some voter votes and the ideology <br>
> that they represent. It is thus typical that a vote to a candidate is also a vote to the ideology/party <br>
> that he/she represents. The total freedom of STV-PR to vote any candidates of any party may thus <br>
> quite often be just a nice option but not very needed (typically just low level of noise in the results). <br>
> Elected candidates probably work for their party anyway, so one can not get rid of these bindings <br>
> even if the voters would be allowed to bypass them in their ballot. <br>
<br>
Under PR-STV, candidates have a high degree of loyalty to their supporters. In Ireland, TDs spend<br>
alot of time at their local 'clinics' where locals can go talk to them. There is also a joke that they spend<br>
alot of time at funerals too.<br>
<br>
> The difference between these two approaches is again "more freedom" vs. "clear groupings" <br>
> (that keep the ballots simple, help the voters to understand the bindings of all of the candidates, <br>
> and after the election bind the representatives to their announced policy). <br>
<br>
Right, there can come a point where voter overload is a problem. However, I think listing <br>
local candidates with the option for write ins should keep the burden low enough.<br>
<br>
<div style="CLEAR: both">Raphfrk<br>
--------------------<br>
Interesting site<br>
"what if anyone could modify the laws"<br>
<br>
www.wikocracy.com</div>
<br>
<div id=AOLMsgPart_0_19613fac-dee5-4419-bbd2-c657b4a02d8e style="FONT-SIZE: 12px; MARGIN: 0px; COLOR: #000; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, Sans-Serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fff"><br>
</div>
<!-- end of AOLMsgPart_0_19613fac-dee5-4419-bbd2-c657b4a02d8e --><div id='u8CAB63A3A926C3A-113C-B9E' 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>