Hi James et al,
Thanks for the input; I've never considered PR seriously before, so I'm just starting to get the "Zen" of it.
On Aug 25, 2004, at 10:47 AM, James Gilmour wrote:
Dr.Ernie Prabhakar > Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 4:30 PM
Why have you got a district magnitude of 20? If you are using (any system of) PR why are you
interested or concerned about "sub-districts"? If you are looking at an existing situation where
you want to change from single-member districts to multi-member districts for PR, reformers like me
always advocate grouping the new multi-member districts around "natural communities". The scale of
such communities will vary according to the scale of the whole exercise.
Ah, okay, I think I'm getting it. So, how the heck does one define natural communities in any sort of objective manner? City boundaries? Commute flows? Geography? And, isn't there some minimal district size where PR loses its value? And maximum size where voters get overwhelmed? The optimal size Assembly is purportedly 300, which would mean 100 districts of average magnitude 3.
I'm particularly interested in the State of California. One proposal that has been suggested is to create 'supercounties' that reflect major transportation grids boundaries, e.g., Los Angeles (six southern counties), the Bay Area (nine SF counties), central valley (Fresno & Yosemite), and upstate (Redding etc.).
Would the idea be to do PR in each of those four regions? Is that still comprehensible to mere mortals, even if, say, the L.A. region has 150 seats to be filled (more than the total entrants to our recall!)? Or do we draw the line at a certain size? Does it matter at all if the different regions have different populations? (is that Tullymandering?)
If locality matters to the voters, they will take this into account when they mark their
preferences. So you will get PR of parties and PR of locality, both as determined by the voters.
Ah, now I think I get the locality issue. People can choose to make their top ranking based on locality or party, whichever is more important (in whatever combinations). Thanks. So, within a district locality is preserved by voter action. But that still leaves the question of how to optimally draw districts.
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
Interesting. So 20 actually is an interesting number, if one cares about 95% confidence levels. :-) Adam's suggestion of seven (a nice number for cognitive scientists) puts us at around 90%, right?
For discussion of these issues in a real political reform context, see:
http://www.fairsharevoting.org/Implementing%20STV-PR%20- %20Paper%20for%20SP%20LGC%201%20Dec%2002.pdf
Cool, thanks. I note that they seem to have settled on flexible districts of size 4-10 or so, similar to Adam's recommendation.
P.S. Does STV-PR actually allow voting for predefined lists > as well as
individual candidates? I had trouble understanding the existing > articles on this point.
Yes, this is allowed in the perverted version of STV-PR used in Australia for Federal elections.
The effect of "ticket voting" is such that STV-PR is reduced to nothing more than a fancy version of
party list PR. This runs counter to the whole concept behind STV, ie that the system is centred on
the voters and not centred on the parties.
Um, I'm confused. I understand that -requiring- ticket voting would be perverse. But, I can easily imagine a voter wanting the simplification of saying, "I want Joe first, then any Green, then any Democrat." Is that possible with "non-perverted" STV-PR?
On Aug 25, 2004, at 10:57 AM, Markus Schulze wrote:
Here is my suggestion:
http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/ 2002-December/009102.html
I appreciate the flexibility, but I'm having hard time imagining the user interface. I guess I see it more as a system for ranking individual candidates, but with a 'quick fill' button for each party that automatically ranks any unassigned candidates from that party below your existing picks.
Has anyone implemented/experimented with a UI for this?
-- Ernie P.
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
