On 02/23/2012 11:24 PM, Richard Fobes wrote:
Kristofer Munsterhjelm asks: "... why do you propose rules that would
make it harder for third parties to grow?" ...
What I promote is VoteFair ranking. It includes a PR-related portion --
called VoteFair partial-proportional ranking -- that gives
representation to third parties that represent enough voters. This
aspect of VoteFair ranking specifically makes it easier (not harder) for
third parties to grow.
Yes, proportional representation would make it easier for third parties
to grow. On the other hand, in an earlier post, you suggested STV (which
is a PR method and thus one would expect to have the same purpose as the
VoteFair ranking) be used with two seats instead of three or five.
In a five-seat district, assuming Droop proportionality, any group of
more than a sixth of the voters can give their candidate a seat.
However, in a two-seat district, the group has to grow to exceed a third
of the voters to be sure of getting that seat; thus, smaller groups
could be splintered (either maliciously by gerrymandering or simply due
to bad luck), if there are few seats.
Since the quota constitutes a sort of effective threshold, a two-seat
system would make it harder for a party to grow than would a five-seat
system, since the party would have to become a lot larger before
starting to win seats. Not as hard as in a single district system, of
course, but that's not much of a compliment.
You could compensate for the disproportionality on the local level with
proportionality on a greater level, like MMP does, but then you couldn't
use the "start small and locally" strategy because the compensation
mechanism would have to be present from the start.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
