Dear Ian Farrow,
Thank you for commenting on my election plan. I will agree that MMP is
merely a closed party list method. But, any election that is divided into
districts(constituencies) should have a way to balance up the
proportionality of the parties across all the districts. If and when Canada
and/or USA installs election reform on the federal level we can be sure
that the countries will be divided into districts. Both MMP and my Plan are
able to balance up the party proportionality across Canada and/or USA.
I am willing to go as far as to say that my Plan is a bit more
complicated than MMP. In the first cycle, MMP uses the single-seat district
method. My Plan uses Choice Voting(STV) - which is more complicated. I
prefer Choice Voting, so I am willing to accept more complication. In the
second cycle MMP uses closed party list. My Plan uses open party list -
plus the order is determined by Choice Voting. I prefer open party list. To
resolve the remainders, MMP uses some divisor solution or the largest
remainder solution. My Plan uses the ranking of the parties by the voters
and Choice Voting. I prefer voter ranking because it allows the voters to
resolve the remainders.
My Plan is a bit more complicated than MMP. But, even if most people
deem my plan extremely complicated, that is not a problem. Computers will
be doing the "dog work" - not me - nor anyone else.
The bottom line is that if there is a plan that is best able to do the
job then we should use that plan - even if it is a bit more complicated.
Regards,
Donald
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
/// N E W D E M O C R A C Y ///
\\\ Home of Citizen's Democracy http://www.mich.com/~donald \\\
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
