Second try Begin forwarded message:
> From: Juho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: September 22, 2007 1:23:31 GMT+03:00 > To: election-methods@lists.electorama.com > Subject: Re: [Election-Methods] Measuring power in a multi winner > election > > Some random observations on the theme. > > "Seats != power" seems to assume that there is a hard party > discipline (=all party representatives will/must vote as told by > the party). Or alternatively representatives could have different > weights (different number of votes each). > > You skipped the "normal" rule of proportional systems where votes = > seats quite quickly. It has its problems but I guess also possible > power measurement based methods would have some problems. Let's say > there is a rule that one can modify the constitution with 75% of > the votes. There are three parties: 45%, 45% and 10%. Should we now > give the smallest party more power by allowing it to modify the > constitution together with one large party in some cases (with only > 55% of the votes)? > > With 50% limit and parties 30%, 30%, 30%, 10%, should we allow > minority decisions in some cases to allow the small party to decide > in some cases? > > One alternative approach would be to require higher percentage of > votes in some cases, e.g. after decisions have been made with lower > percentages for few times. In this case 30%+30% would not be enough > any more in some cases but the the approval limit would go up from > 50% e.g. to 65% at some point. > > Note that if the parties will make majority decisions that then > require all the party representatives to vote as decided this means > that some of the party representatives may have to vote against > their will. The party is allowed to wield power but part of the > representatives will wild the power against themselves. The party > has power but the representatives and supporters would in some > cases be hurt by this power (maybe the alternative that lost had > majority support among (all) the representatives and voters). The > party "won" but maybe not all of its representatives and supporters. > > I guess the basic idea behind party discipline is that this way the > party is able to reach a better negotiation position. A party that > is internally split 50%-50% on some question can still do horse > trading and agree with some other party to support that party in > this vote if that party will support this this party in some future > vote. The power of the parties now follows the power measurement > schemes instead of "votes = power". But in principle parties that > together have sufficient majority may take a dictator role. It is > hard to design systems that would eliminate the possibility of this > kind of party negotiation level voting discipline (if one party can > do this, why not a group of parties too). > > Voting methods that would take the power measurement aspects into > account may give more power to the small parties in order to allow > them to decide more than they would otherwise be allowed to. This > could lead to a strategic for the big parties to split at least > formally but still after the elections use strong party discipline > that would now cover all the party fragments. > > How about using the more traditional votes = seats method and > discouraging the use of the party discipline? That could be just a > recommendation, or maybe a rule that would ban disciplinary actions > towards representatives that have voted against the party majority > opinion. One approach would be to introduce more structure in the > party structure. I have few times promoted the idea of allowing a > tree like structure within the parties (and between them too). That > would make it easier to the right or green wing of a party to vote > differently than the rest of the party (they could feel close to > being required to do so in some "right" or "green" situations). > > Also methods that do not rely on the party structure (e.g. STV) are > more likely to lead to a having representatives that will make > independent decisions, maybe sometimes working together with other > right wing representatives, sometimes together with other greenish > representatives etc. > > I'm not aware of methods that would take some of the power > measurement formula into account. > > I welcome multi-winner discussions. No need and no reason to limit > the discussions to the single-winner theme. (What would be the > reason to do so? Often single-winner and multi-winner systems are > alternatives to each others => both needed to cover the field > properly.) > > Juho > > > On Sep 21, 2007, at 18:22 , Howard Swerdfeger wrote: > >> I know that this list is primarily single winner elections but I >> thought >> given the low volume as of late a slight change of topic would >> be welcome. >> >> with that, I was wondering about multi winner elections. specifically >> the parliamentary kind typical of most former British colonies. >> >> Do to the inadequacies of the FPTP system in creating a government >> many >> of these countries are looking at alternative systems, New Zealand >> moved >> to MMP, Scotland as well, BC tried to once, and will try again >> move to >> STV, Ontario is looking at MMP. >> >> The drive behind thes moves it usually that the old system fails to >> translate votes into seats "fairly". (Votes != Seats) >> >> but most of these reforms fail to recognize that that Seats do not >> equal >> power. So we are still still stuck with a similar problem (votes ! >> = power) >> >> I was looking into 2 methods of measuring power in a weighted >> voting system. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banzhaf_Power_Index >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapley-Shubik_power_index >> >> I was wondering first if there are any methods of measuring power >> in a >> legislature that I am unaware of? Secondly if anybody has tried to >> design a generic system where by votes are kept proportional to >> power, >> via allocation of seats? >> >> ---- >> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for >> list info > ___________________________________________________________ Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! Mail. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info