Stephane OK, but the onus is on you to find and define some new terminology for the situation you describe.
The common meaning of "single-member district" as "a district represented by only one member elected by a single-winner voting system" is so well established that it would be unreasonable, in my view, to require everyone worldwide now to have to write "single-winner single-member district" where they currently write "single-member district". This accepted meaning of "single-member district" applies even in hybrid voting systems like MMP. James > > 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