James, The problem is not that we seek "pure" proportionality, we seek decision makers that can take the best decisions with the limited ressources they have. If they invest in a useless hospital to gain votes, the money to build a more useful bridge elsewhere won't be available. The only tip we can have to get the best decisions is independant judges, exactly like in a jury. Any geographical districts, even Matt's best designs will still make each of those judge partial when deciding where to invest government's money.
James Gilmour wrote : > Matt wrote > > Maybe, but if there is a solution to a real problem then we > > cannot know if the solution will be adopted without giving it a try. > > But I don't think there is a "real problem". This problem is in the minds of those > who seek some > mythical "pure" proportionality. And we here in the UK already know that virtual > districts are not > worth a second thought, at least, not here. How do we know? From what electors > have already said > about what they want from their representives. UK electors have never been offered chronological districts, only multi-membered districts. Most participant here on the EM list do not even know what chronological districts are! Did you ask UK electors if they wanted unpartial country managers? > Locality and community are very important. I agree!! But they need to be defended by their city council (or other local organism) in front of a national INDEPENDANT council board. > > James Steph. ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
