Adam Tarr > Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 10:29 PM > Well, I would make it a requirement that population-per-seat be equal > across districts, plus or minus an extremely small margin owing to the > granularity of census blocks or zip codes or whatever is used as the > "atoms" of district formation. So that takes (c) out of the criteria.
I am aware of this North American obsession with equalness of numbers, but it is a pointless pursuit if the real objective is "equality of representation". You can equalise every aspect of your districts as much as you like, but differences in turnout at the election will make a nonsense of the attempt to attain some perfection of "equalness". In the most recent Northern Ireland Assembly STV-PR elections (all 6-member districts) the turnouts varied between districts from 55% to 75%. This distorts the "equalness of representation" between districts. Add to this the political fact that there is a strong correlation between turnout and party support, and the difference in turnout also distorts the "equalness of representation" between political parties. But the obsession with equalness misses the point. "Equality of representation" is about more than can be obtained by equalising numbers of electors. Look at the variations that exist where STV-PR is used successfully. James ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
