Stephane Rouillon Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 2:41 AM > I never said that the electorate will was to identify itself > to some political parties.
I never said you did. MY comments (in full below) made absolutely no mention of political parties. I was concerned only to draw the distinction in multi-winner elections between the view that the voting system should maximise representation of consensus and the view that the voting system should maximise representation of diversity. > > You mix the fact that I use political parties in SPPA to > simplify ballot treatment in order to get nearer our common > objective (a representative chamber that is independent of > party lines) and the fact that other people (not me) consider > that proportionality is only measured using party distributions. I made no comment about your SPPA voting system, nor did I have it in mind when I wrote my comments about consensus and diversity. My comment was intended to be a completely general one, relating to issues that overtly or covertly run through much of the discussion about the purposes of elections. The only voting system I had in mind was STV-PR: it has implementations that maximise diversity (Dáil Éireann rules) and implementations that maximise consensus (Meek rules). James > Yes I lose something with SPPA (using party affiliation to > transfer votes) compared to STV-PR using only individually > expressed transfers. But I gain more because SPPA results in > a proportionailty equivalent to a single district STV-PR, a > level STV-PR cannot reach because ballots with hundreds of > names scares the electorate. This is "the realities of > politics in the real world." > > Steph. > PS: Please note that I will never repeat it enough: STV-PR is > in my humble opinion the best multiple-winner electoral > system among the ones actually used in the world. It should > not stop us to search for a better one. > > James Gilmour a écrit : > > > Stephane Rouillon Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 5:44 AM > > > Criterias and electoral methods hare not meant to > > > cope for a fractionated electorate. An electoral system goal is to > > > get the electorate will, whatever it is. > > > > This may be true for single-winner elections, eg city mayor, state > > governor, but fractionated electorates are the realities of politics > > in the real world. > > > For elections to councils, assemblies and legislatures it is only one > > view of the goal of an electoral system. Those steeped in social > > choice theory believe that the purpose of a voting system should be to > > maximise representation of consensus among the electors. But there is > > a much older view: that the purpose of a voting system should be to > > maximise representation of the diversity among the electors. > > > > James Gilmour ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info