Sorry but no, I am definitively not playing with words. I am just making sure that the terminology used, leaves some way to describe SPPA. Call it the way you want, but make sure people understand that a single-runner method can have multiple-winners if the voters of each districts are considered equivalent samples of the electorate. Thus instead of electing a loser with 10% of the vote in a specific district as proposes Juho, it seems fair to elect instead another loser from the same party with 49% in a district that already has one winner. Simulation I made using both these systems (Juho and mine) showed an approbational rate almost double with SPPA instead of Juho's system.
James Gilmour a écrit : > Stephane a écrit : > > It is possible to achieve PR with single-member districts if > > by single-member district it means only one representative of > > any political can be candidate. This unclassical definition > > does not say that there will be only one winner. There could > > be several or even none. > > Stephane, this is just playing with words! By "single-member > district" the world of electoral science means and understands "a > district electing one single member" to multi-member body, like a city > council or state legislature. The term is used to distinguish this type > of election from a "single winner election" where there is only one post > to fill, like a city mayor or a state governor. Any other "definitions" > are unhelpful and just create confusion where none need exist. > > So my statement stands: > > James Gilmour a écrit : > > > My statement related to voting systems based on "single-member > > > districts" and it is correct that if you have only single-member > > > districts you cannot have PR (except by chance). > > James ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info