On 2/17/2012 6:49 AM, David L Wetzell wrote:
...
It seems to me that most folks think the choice is between ranked
choices or party-list PR. ...
So what do you think?
I don't see this as an either/or choice, nor do I see a viable "both"
option being suggested.
So I'll again suggest VoteFair ranking:
VoteFair ranking uses "ranked choices" (1-2-3 ballots and pairwise
counting...) for identifying the most popular candidate -- for filling
the first seat in a legislative district.
VoteFair ranking fills the second district-based seat with the
"second-most representative" candidate. In the U.S., even without
asking voters to indicate a party preference, that would usually be the
most popular candidate from the opposite party (i.e. the opposite party
compared to the first-seat winner).
To further increase proportionality, VoteFair ranking fills some
proportional seats based on the favorite party of the voters.
(Whichever party has the biggest gap between voter proportion and
filled-seat proportion wins the next seat.)
We don't have to choose between proportionality (PR) and ranked methods.
We can get both. And in a U.S.-compatible way.
If election-method reform is to happen in the U.S., it has to merge with
the reality of the two-party system. And I believe it should
accommodate third parties only to the extent that voters are unable to
regain control of the two main parties.
As for STV, going beyond two seats easily produces unfair results. And
in the U.S. the results also would be quite unstable (i.e. not mesh well
with the current two-party system).
Richard Fobes
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
