Stephane wrote > James Gilmour a écrit : > > > No. The largest single defect of single-member districts is that they usually > > deny representation to half of those who vote. At best, they can guarantee > > representation to only half. The second largest defect of > single-member districts > > is that they commonly distort the wishes of the voters in terms of overall > > representation. Gerrymandering is a defect of single-member districts, but it > > comes third on my list. > > SPPA (French acronym) solves both lattest problems (totally proportional and no > circumscription).
I do not understand the term "circumscription". > About the first problem, Montreal simulation done during the Convention > of electors, > november 10th, showed direct support using four different methods > after rallying when it is used: I do not understand what the term "rallying" means. > FPTP (no rallying) 46% > MMP (no rallying) 38% - but except to quota, proportional > STV (after rallying) 46% - semi-proportional > SPPA (after rallying) 69% - integer optimal proportional What do you mean by "direct support"? What are the percentages? If the simulation of STV gave a result that can be correctly described as "semi-propotional" then all I can say is that it was a simulation of a very poor implementation of STV-PR. Actual results from real STV-PR public elections show that STV-PR can be correctly described as "proportional". What is "optimal" will depend on the criteria you have selected to optimise and the definitions you have chosen to use. > > Just read and ask... > http://www.fairvotecanada.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=8&forum=1&4 I have read through this description but cannot find the answers to the questions above. I am not in favour of any system that allocates seats to parties. Political parties already have too much power over the elected representatives. The balance of power needs to be redressed in favour of the voters. The proportionality in your proportional representation is focussed exclusively on the political parties. But proportional representation can be, and in my view, should be, about much more than just PR of political parties. If I have understood your description correctly, when no party wins a majority of seats, you allocate 50% of the seats to the party that wins most votes. This may or may not solve your problem of "shaky governments" by providing them with a "crutch", but it is not proportional representation. Practical experience of real PR systems shows that neither coalition government nor minority government need be shaky. That is a function of the political culture, not the voting system. You advocate a system of electoral "ridings" instead of geographically defined electoral districts. This would not be acceptable in the UK (and, I suspect, in many other countries) where locality and geography are considered important in representation at all levels of government. Your example was for 10 "ridings" and 10 seats. The UK Parliament has 659 elected members. Under your system would this mean there would be 659 electoral "ridings" and that the votes would be averaged over all 659 ridings to ensure a high degree of party proportionality? If you do mean PR to one in 659 (1/659th), I have to say that this is not necessary and that it is highly undesirable. Its political consequences would be disastrous. That is not speculation on my part - sadly, we have the we have the evidence from real elections of national legislatures to confirm the point. James ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info