<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div><div>On 8.6.2012, at 12.33, Jameson Quinn wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2012/6/7 Michael Ossipoff <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com" target="_blank">email9648742@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; position: static; z-index: auto; ">
Juho & Jameson:<br>
<br>
Jameson:<br>
<br>
You describe a complicated new PR system. But why, when there are already<br>
good PR systems?<br><br></blockquote><div>All PR systems have complicated rules. But <a href="http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/PAL_representation">PAL representation</a> is actually very simple for the voter; they need only cast a single vote, on a ballot which explicitly lists only a manageable dozen or so candidates (though it allows write-ins for a broader number). And, as it's name implies, PAL uses that single vote to achieve a result that's:</div>
<div><ul><li>Proportional: Fully proportional by party; even the inevitable rounding paradoxes are dealt with in a way that maximizes both representation and legitimacy.</li><li>Accountable: Voter-centric "open list", with no "safe seats".</li>
<li>Local: uses a single-member district map, so, though as PR it makes gerrymandering irrelevant, it doesn't require any redistricting. In fact, it is the least disruptive possible PR reform; incumbents can be assured that, if single-member districts are not unfairly gerrymandered and if voters actually vote for only two parties, the results will be exactly the same as single-member FPTP. Moreover, unlike single-member districts, each district is assigned one representative per winning party (and each representative has multiple districts), so that a strong supermajority of voters have a representative whom they supported, who's accountable to them.</li>
</ul></div><div>Jameson</div></div>
</blockquote></div></div><div><br></div><div>PAL representation seems to be an interesting mix of open-list style voting + STV + candidate given preference order + local representation + disapprovals etc. Those properties might be interesting in the U.S. It's hard for me to say what would be a good and acceptable system for the U.S. voters and politicians. But if you present a rich set of alternatives that together address all possible viewpoints and needs, maybe one day people and politicians will pick one of them, and the one that is best for them. This one is a bit complex but good in picking ideas that may catch interest.</div><div><br></div><div>Juho</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>