<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><br></div><div><br>On 16 Dec 2014, at 15:16, steve bosworth <<a href="mailto:stevebosworth@hotmail.com">stevebosworth@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">S:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I agree with your principles:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“large enough … not too many groups”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However your 10,000 is needlessly arbitrary
and might not deliver what these principles require.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Please consider APR’s formula for determining
its “associations”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is fully
explained in my article on pages 6, Endnote 5, and Flow Chart 2.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What do you think?</span></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The 10'000 is of course arbitrary since it is not designed for any particular society. Each society should pick a number that suits its needs.</div><div><br></div>In APR the difference that was discussed is having the additional primary.<div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">J:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In elections with numerous candidates I would
favour "blank" ballots that do not list the candidate names at all
(one could write candidate numbers in the ballot instead). …<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">S:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why prefer “blank ballots” in preference to
APR’s sample ballot that would make it easier for each citizen to use?</span></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I like "blank" style ballots in general<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">l (not in comparison to APR)</span> in elections with high number of candidates e.g. because that makes ballot printing easy, may make also voting easy (depends on the method), and is a neutral approach (no order of parties and candidates). Often there is no need for the amount of paper that tens or hundreds of candidates would require.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">J:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The grouping would exist only to nominate a
list of candidates in the election (maybe becomes a proper party if it gets
some seats). The newly formed groupings would be treated in the election
exactly the same way as the old well established parties.<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;">
<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;">
<o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><br><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">S:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Please define what you mean by a “proper
party”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div>"Proper party" means here a party that is well established and that may have additional responsibilities and rights when compared to newly formed lightweight associations that may or may net get seats in the election. It is possible that a "proper party" need not collect supporter names to get the right to nominate candidates (since it is already known to be big enough to have that right).</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">
J: <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No specific method in my mind. But for example
a basic closed list, with no cutoffs, and proportionality counted at top level,
and that allows also small groupings to participate in the election (e.g. after
collecting supporter names), would be proportional and not in any arbitrary
way, and would allow also small groupings to win seats.<br>
> <o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><br><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">S:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Please explain this much more completely.</span></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_list">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_list</a></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">Below you say you want to elect the reps from
a number of multi-winner districts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is
this by a “closed<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>list” party-list
system?</span></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't think I said so. The closed list method was just an example method as an answer to your question.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">By “no cutoffs” do you mean that
any party that receives a percentage of the votes equal to one n<sup>th</sup> <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>of n candidate that will be elected to
represent a given district will send one rep to that assembly, two n<sup>th</sup>
two reps, etc.?</span></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Roughly so. Also district division may also introduce cutoff-like behaviour (= discrimination of the smallest groupings).</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">S:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The primary only determines how many reps
will be elected from each association.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Only all the citizen’s votes in the country during the general election
will determine the weight that each reps’ vote will have in the assembly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, neither the Primary nor the resulting
associations could prevent, for example, any rep from receiving many fewer than
the average number of weighted votes, i.e. when that is how citizens have voted
in the general election.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does this solve
the relevant problem in your mind? <br></span></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Since the oucome of the primary has a meaningful impact on the outcome of the whole election, this does not solve my problem. Vote buyers, coercers etc. may still have an interest to influence the outcome of the primary.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">
> > J: No, APR makes it possible to the voters to prove how they voted.
They could prove that e.g. by showing their association specific ballot paper
to other people.<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;">
<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;">
<o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><br><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">S:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No, no-one can prove how they voted during
the general election as I explained in the 4<sup>th</sup> paragraph below:<br></span></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I referred to the primary.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">
J: To my understanding voting in the primary is not secret.<o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><br><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">S:
Correct, did I ever claim otherwise?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Voting
in the primary is not secret but any such vote cannot bind how any citizen will
vote during the general election.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At the
same time, any citizen who might be uncomfortable by seemingly revealing some
preference in the primary can simply confine his voting to the general
election.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does this solve the problem
you had in mind?<br></span></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, the primary is not secret.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">
J:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Most methods that are in use today
seem simpler than APR.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><br></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><br><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">S:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You seem to have missed the above
reminder:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“APR allows a citizen simply
to vote for one candidate if they see its other options as too complex.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does not this make APR as simple as other
system for all citizens who want it to be this simple?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you think not, please explain.<br></span></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>For example methods that allow only voting of one candidate are easier to understand.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">S:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unlike APR, the systems you seem to prefer violate
democracy’s principle of “equal respect” by giving some citizens the option of
helping to elect a candidate they trust while others are not given this option
within their residential district.<br></span></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm not proposing any alternative systems, just discussing the properties of APR, and if those properties could be improved.</div><div><br></div><div>Geographic proportionality is usually implemented so that it forces voters to vote candidates of their own district.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">S: You
have not yet offered your own justification for insisting on what you call “geographical
proportionality”, especially when it denies some citizens the option of helping
to elect a rep they positively favour.</span></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't insist on geographic proportionality. I did describe why geographic proportionality is often used.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">
J: I don't have any "preferred system". Many systems do guarantee
approximate proportional representation. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>APR introduces some additional exact
mathematical nature to this. I don't think most voters require exact mathematics
but an overall understanding that the system is fair.<o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><br><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">S:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In comparison to APR, these other systems are
not “overall … fair”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How many citizens
have you asked whether they would prefer a system that would guarantee that
their vote will continue to count?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How
many have answered, “NO”?<br></span></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I guess you have already noticed that I'm not proposing any systems as alternatives to APR.</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">
J: The idea that voters may decide which associations are allowed to
participate in the actual election may be popular. I'm however not convinced
that it would also technically make some stronger bonds between the voters and
the parties (i.e. other reasons than the existence of an additional round). …<o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><br><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">S: <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you say that this “participation … may be
popular”, does not this suggest to you, therefore, that it should be tried?</span></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I have said that in general I would like to see some weighted vote systems tested somewhre.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">J:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>… The added complexity may also make some
voters less interested.<o:p></o:p></span></p><font face="Times New Roman">
</font><br><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">S:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why would even those who do not want to
participate in the primary themselves want to deny it to others?<br></span></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The society might prefer simple methods (to offer simple and easy to understand methods to the voters).</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;">S:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Again, as explained earlier, APR offers “simple
and effortless voting” for every citizen who may want it.</span></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>And a very difficult to understand system to all.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Currently, at least, I
am not satisfied simply to leave these decisions to others, i.e. to “society”.</span></p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I see us as experts, discussing the properties of APR. The decisions will be made by the societies (whose members also we might be) that may take different methods into use. Maybe we can help them in their decision making by providing good methods, and good explanations on how they work.</div><div><br></div>Juho</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>