<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Jameson Quinn <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jameson.quinn@gmail.com">jameson.quinn@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br></div><div>It seems to me that most folks think the choice is between ranked choices or party-list PR. </div>
</blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>I don't. I think that party-list removes voter freedom, and ranked choices is too much of a burden on the voter. While either would be better than what we have, I prefer to use delegation a la SODA. </div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Obviously, you are not most folks....</div><div><br></div><div>1. Your igoring my key-arg of context. Less freedom is not always less for rationally ignorant voters.</div><div>2. Up to 5 rankings is not a burden, since voters can choose to do as many as they wish and rely on intermediaries for discernment. </div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br></div><div>Thus my favored system is <a href="http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/PAL_representation" target="_blank">PAL representation</a>. It's true that PAL still has some (very attenuated) party-list-like aspects, because party affiliation is used to match candidates to districts at the end; but if you were willing to give up this (overlapping) geographical representation aspect of PAL, you could make a similar delegated PR system in which parties played no explicit role.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>3. I haven't looked at PAL for a while. I'm sticking with 3-5 seat forms of PR that don't challenge the existence of a 2-party system. This keeps the complexity down. I figure we can challenge the constitutionality of denying state's rights to decide whether they want to use a multi-seat election rule for congressional candidates, on the basis of its discriminatory effect against minorities. Clarence Thomas is known to be favorable to this.</div>
<div><br></div><span style>James Gilmore: But why would you want all these differences and complications?</span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">dlw: Because context matters. 3-seat LR Hare is not complicated. It works almost just like 1-seat LR Hare, better known as FPTP. And I'm keeping STV-PR to keep down the diffs and complications, since it works similarly to IRV, the best known alternative to FPTP among progressives in the US. <br style>
<br style><span style>JG: If you are going to use STV-PR for some of these elections, why not use STV-PR for all of these elections to the various</span><br style><span style>"representative assemblies" (councils, state legislatures, US House of Representatives, US Senate). STV-PR works OK in both </span><span style>partisan and non-partisan elections, so it should give fair and proper representation of the VOTERS in all these different</span><br style>
<span style>elections.</span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">dlw: 1. There are benefits to party-list PR, relative to STV. 2. STV-PR has been bundled with the droop quota. The hare quota is far more 3rd party friendly. 3. Some elections get less voter attn and the benefit of giving voters more options is less than cost of having too many candidates clamoring for your ranked votes. <br style>
<br style><span style>JG: Of course, with districts returning only 3 to 5 members, the proportionality and direct representation MAY be a little limited, but </span><span style>if small numbers are needed to make the system acceptable to the vested interests, then so be it. STV-PR with 3, 4 or 5 member </span><span style>districts is greatly to be preferred to plurality in single-member districts and to plurality at large. </span></div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><span style><br></span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif">dlw: Hare quota w. 3 seats is somewhat preferable to Droop quota w. 3 seats. 3-seat LR-Hare is biased in favor of bigger 3rd parties, which offsets the continued use of single-member elections for state senate and what-not. Now, you could pair the Hare quota w. STV, but why not keep the bundling of STV w. the Droop quota to keep things simpler? </font></div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><span style><br></span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><span style>JG:We had to accept local </span><span style>government wards electing only 3 or 4 councillors as part of our STV-PR package - that's practical politics. But that reform has </span><span style>transformed our local government - no more "one-party states".</span></div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">dlw: Undoubtedly, and this is what made the AV referendum possible, no doubt. This is why I argue that the strategic use of low-seat PR for "more local" elections is a key way to change the dynamics of US politics. Which is in turn why I keep insisting that |Xirv-Xoth| << Pirv-Poth for single-member seats. </div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">dlw <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div>
</div><div>Jameson</div><div><br></div></font></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br>