Stephane Rouillon said: > Making "virtual" ridings non-geographically-based migth not be > considered by serious electoral-reformers, and it is not going to be > feasible soon, but do you see another way to remove personal interest > from the election process.
This has its problems too. Let's say we somehow form virtual districts, based on free or assigned associations of people. It can be by profession, political preference, or personal whim, or whatever. Now the goal is to advance "my" group. Maybe not pork for the local road construction, but if it's a free association of people with common interests, then advance whatever those interests are to the expense of all else. If it's a virtual district based on profession, well, we've all seen how lobbying groups for labor and business operate. If it's (God forbid) a religious or ethnic virtual district, we've all seen how ethnic and religious divisions can play havoc in politics. No electoral system can cure politicians of the desire to advance their constituents to the detriment of all others, unless we go to a single nation-wide electoral district. And the undesirable features of such a district are: 1) The more constituents a legislator has, the harder it is for a citizen to really have meaningful access to a legislator. 2) The more candidates there are, the less likely candidates are to compete on individual merit, and the more difficult it is for the voters to evaluate individuals on their merits. Anyway, I no longer buy the argument "My method elects better people who are less selfish." The only arguments I might buy are "This method gives more groups of voters a seat at the table in proportion to their number", or "This method enables more options to compete". Alex ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
