<div>Juho:</div><div> </div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid" class="gmail_quote"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div> </div><div>2. You can vote for a party (or an independent running like a party) in a national party list PR election.</div><div> </div><div>Then, the number of seats won by a party, nationwide, in the local district elections is augmented to bring it up to the amount allocated to it</div>
<div>in the national list PR election.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>My question was about your proposed STV based method that includes topping-up. It seems that the local (1.) and national (2.) votes are fully independent.</div>
<div> </div></div></div></blockquote><div>They are. </div><div> </div><div>As for whether a candidate can run in hir district, and also nationwide, I don't have an opinion on that. But it seems harmless--s/he can't be elected to two seats.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid" class="gmail_quote"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div> </div>
<div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div> </div><div>But the answer to your question is "No". You speak of "...an independent of Party P" . That is a contradiction in term. There is no such thing as an independent of a party. </div>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>This gets a bit complex since I picked term "independent" (with quotes) from your mail. I thought that you referred to the idea of declaring some of the party candiates as independent for strategic reasons (that I discussed in the earlier mail).</div>
<div> </div></div></div></blockquote><div>We should say officially that "party independent" refers to a candidate who is to all intents and purposes a party candidate, but whom a party (probably strategically) asks to run as an independent.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid" class="gmail_quote"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div> </div>
<div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>
<div> </div><div>The following two paragraphs answer your concern:</div><div> </div><div>But your concern probably is that a party could deviously ask a candidate that they like, and who is, for all intents and purposes, a party candidate of theirs, to run as an independent, with no official party designation, and no mention of a party connection, by hir or the party. </div>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Yes, that's my concern. Except that I expect most party P voters to know very well that this candidate that pretends to be independent actually is set by party P. Most voters of this candidate would thus be supporters of party P. (And those voters would vote for party P in the national vote.)</div>
<div> </div></div></div></blockquote><div>I answered that concern. It's a concern that could be raised in regard to any topping-up ("additional-member") system. And it's a concern that is easily answered, as I answered it. </div>
<div> </div><div>Every party P voter who nationally votes for the party independent doesn't vote for P. If non-P voters vote for the party independent, it's because s/he has appeal apart from P-ness.S/he deserves those votes therefore. So what's the problem?</div>
<div> </div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid" class="gmail_quote"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div> </div>
<div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>
<div> </div><div> </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>But I interpret you again so that it is possible to cast a fully separate local vote (to an independent candidate) and a national vote (to party P (that is not formally associated with the candidate of the local vote)).</div>
<div> </div></div></div></blockquote><div>Quite so.That is the nature of a topping-up (additional-member) system. </div><div> </div><div> </div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid" class="gmail_quote">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div> </div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>
<div>
</div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><div>You continued:</div><div> </div><div> will be elected, then party P is likely to get many representatives that are "independent", and the number of its "non-independent" representatives is smaller that its proportional share (that is derived from the national party votes), and therefore party P will get some extra seats in the top-up process. Party P will thus get its proportional share of the seats + several "independents" (that the method does not consider to be party P representatives, although in practice they are). That would mean that the method is vulnerable to running some candidates (likely winners) as "independents" to get more seats.</div>
<div> </div><div>[endquote]</div><div> </div><div>That's what you said before. Re-read the two paragraphs above that are immediately below the words, "The following two paragraphs answer your concerns."</div>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>There was some confusion above since the terminology got mixed up. My question is still the same. Do you think that the strategy that I described applies to your proposed "local STV + national party vote" method? The strategy was that party P declares (deviously) some of its (well known) strong candidates as independent candidates in the election, and hopes this way to reduce the number of locally elected candidates that would be formally counted as party P candidates, and as a result the topping-up process would give party P additional seats.</div>
<div> </div></div></div></blockquote><div>It isn't a problem, for the reason that I stated in this posting and my previous one.</div><div> </div><div>Mike Ossipoff</div><div> </div><div> </div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid" class="gmail_quote">
<div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div> </div><div><div><br> </div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>
<div> </div><span><font color="#888888"><div><br></div></font><div></div></span><div> </div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div>