<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Recommend the Cambridge PR local
elections method. I believe it is possible to download their
computer count. Last I heard, it relied on statistical probability
for valid surplus transfer of votes in order of preference. A best
Gregory method transfer, or the Meek method STV would be better
still (tho not perfect). <br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">But all of them are voter-centered
preferential PR methods, which is democratically far preferable to
party-centered PR, where only party members would get to rank the
party lists, with no cross-party preferences allowed.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">No official party list system, in the
world, that I know of, allows the voters a preference vote at all,
in which respect these proposals, as I understand (or
misunderstand) them, would only so allow party members (by
definition imprisoned within their party for preference).<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">from</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Richard Lung.<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 28/05/2019 02:29, Don Hoffard wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:000001d514f4$cfbc5660$6f350320$@frontier.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:8.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
line-height:106%;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">PROPORTIONAL REPERSENTATION (PR) OHIO: Ohio
has 16 Representatives to Congress. In the last election
(2018) they elected 12 Republicans and 4 Democrats. The state
has been accrued of Gerrymandering and the issue is now before
the US Supreme Court. I added all of the votes of all 16
congressional districts and found that the Republican got 52%
and Democrats got 48% (just between the two main parties). A
fair representation of the voters of Ohio would be 8
Republicans and 8 Democrats (52%/48% *16 = rounded to 8/8)
based on the votes cast in the last election. Was the cause
Gerrymandering? Let us do a fair redistricting of the state so
that each district reflects the state as a whole (52%R/48%D)
(Not really possible, however) and had a new election. The
result would 16 Republicans and 0 Democrats, where the
Republicans would win every districts (52%/48%) with no
Gerrymandering. The real problem in Ohio (and in most states)
is the “Winner take all” single district system.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">PROPORTIONAL REPERSENTATION (PR): To do PR
you need a ranked list of candidates by party (top to bottom)
and a percent voting for each party at the state level (say
52%R/48%D). For Ohio we would pick the top 8 on the Democrats
list and the top 8 on the Republicans list and they would be
Ohio’s representatives to Congress. Traditionally there would
be no districts and the party rankings are done at the state
level (all state party members vote on the rankings). A party
member would vote for 1 (or alternatively vote for 16). Ok,
this is where I have a problem with this method. It would be
hard for any Republican (or Democrat) voter to know, or even
how to rank 16 state wide candidates. Secondly, more of the
higher ranked candidates could come from the cities and would
not truly represent some the rural areas of the state. Lastly,
a person in Ohio could not tell who is representing them in
Congress.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">ALTERNATIVE (PR): Let us keep the
congressional districts (16). We will then have each district
vote by party preference (‘which party do you prefer”). Some
district may have 67% to 33% republican preference votes,
while others districts may have 80% to 28% democratic
preference votes. We add the party preference votes of each
district to get a state level preference vote total. Let us
assume that it is about (52%R/48%D). We would use this to
determine the states “preferred” proportion of representatives
to Congress (8R/8D). Now in the primary each party would vote
for their candidate to represent them in each of the 16
districts (the same as current). The Republican candidates in
each district with their top 8 percent’s (%) preference votes
would be elected to Congress. The Democratic candidate in each
district with their top 8 percent’s (%) preference votes would
also be elected to Congress.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Don Hoffard<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Aloha, Oregon<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">----
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://electorama.com/em">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>