I agree with everything James wrote, I'd just like to make an addition. James Gilmour wrote:
>Dr.Ernie Prabhakar > Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 4:30 PM > >> But, with PR, it can get quite complicated. Has anyone thought about >> the 'fairest' way to maximize locality while preserving PR? Or, is >> there a really strong argument that one should ignore locality >> completely? Or is it just too hard? > >With all PR systems there is a trade-off between degree of PR obtained and localness >of >representation. To increase PR, increase district magnitude. To increase localness, >reduce >district magnitude. Different people will have different views about where the >balance should be >struck in making that trade-off. Remember also that the law of diminishing returns >applies: see: >http://homepages.phonecoop.coop/James.Gilmour/Representation_in_multi-member_constituencies.gif In addition to losing "localness", some would argue for smaller district magnitude for two other reasons: 1) A moderating influence on the legislature. By requiring every elected candidate to have a significant level of support in some area, we reduce the chance of electing more extreme candidates. 2) Simplicity for the voter. The fewer seats to be filled, the less candidates the voter has to vote for to ensure exhausting his or her ballot, and the less research the voter has to do to vote in an informed manner. The first point is a bit more controversial than the second. At any rate, I'd gravitate towards around 7 candidates per disctrict. This is a general rule and I'd allow for exceptions. An excellent example of an exception would be New York City, where it makes sense to just have one district with a dozen seats. ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
