D- General reply to Mr. Layton-
There are variations in proxy p.r. methods just as there are variations in
single winner methods (such as the various tiebreakers with Condorcet single
winner methods). The question in the U.S.A. is how simple election methods
(and their cost) should be in view of the really low average political
intelligence level in the U.S.A. (compared to the accuracy of any reform
method).
D- >Thus, only proxy p.r. is 100 percent accurate in representing ALL voters
>(though a voter may not be represented by his/her early choice(s) (first,
>second, etc.).
The first, second, etc. applies to the more complex proxy p.r. methods- not
to the variable size body posting.
Mr. Layton-
Nominating petition? An actual petition where a candidate needs 4 percent
of the voters signing the petition before they are allowed to run? Hmm. We
limit candidates by charging them a certain amount of money to run. If the
candidate doesn't get a certain percentage of the vote (either first
preference or just before they get eliminated) they don't get the money
back. If you still have too many factions, raise the price. Petitions are
probably better, but if you charge you might be able to run the election at
no cost to the taxpayer.
D- The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the 14th Amendment's Equal
Protection Clause prohibits having only filing fees (discrimination against
poor candidates). Many States have nominating petitions only for major
offices and filing fees or nominating petitions for lower offices. Such
nominating petitions for primary elections of the major parties (Democrat and
Republican) currently require around 0.25 percent of the voters in the last
election in the area involved.
Thus a 4 percent requirement would limit the number of serious candidates.
Mr. Layton- How can you have a number of members per district, if every
candidate who gets votes is elected?
These two elements I agree with. There is some suggestion that 7 is the
optimal number of members per district. The rest of your system has been
different each time you've posted it. Should I assume these are successive
improvements? I'm not taking this as a disagreement with my posting, as
this system would certainly pass the legitimacy test with compulsory voting.
D- The fixed number of members per district applies to my earlier posting-
does not apply to the variable size body.
See general comment at beginning. Compulsory voting in the U.S.A. would
probably be deemed to violate the First Amendment (freedom of speech- freedom
NOT to use speech in voting). That is, if you do not vote in the U.S.A,
then you do not care what sort of government that you get (noting that many
U.S.A. folks are functionally illiterate so they do not vote-- i.e. do not
understand ANY government forms- voter registration, ballots, etc.).
