Multi-member system: Difference between revisions
Local district clusters vs Multi-member districts
Dr. Edmonds (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Dr. Edmonds (talk | contribs) (Local district clusters vs Multi-member districts) |
||
Line 23:
* [[Sequentially Subtracted Score]]
* [[Single transferable vote]]
* [[Sequential Ebert]]
==[https://rangevoting.org/QualityMulti.html Optimal] [[Proportional representation | Proportional]] Methods ==
Line 35:
* [[Monroe's Method]]
* [https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.05248 PAMSAC]
== Local district clusters vs Multi-member districts ==
There is an alternative to running a Multi-winner system in a Multi-member district. This is the concept of local district clusters. The traditional Multi-member districts just take the single member districts and combine them while this method would just link them into a cluster. Lets take 5 for example. All single member districts are combined into clusters of 5 with 5 seats up for grabs and most major parties running 5 candidates. What the difference is in this “Local” system is that each candidate would be elected to a specific single member district inside the cluster of 5. So the first winner would eliminate all other candidates running in the district they won. This of course means that all multi-member systems can be adapted to run in local clusters. The purported inventor of this alternative is Byron Becker for his [http://localpr.ca/basics/overview/ Local PR system].
===Pros===
* Improved [[Proportionate representation]]: Each elected representative is responsible for a smaller area and can focus on the specific issues important to the citizens of that region .
* Improved [[Petitioner Accountability]]: Each citizen from that district has a specific representative for local issues who can be held to account. ie issues with traffic/schools/hospitals can’t have the buck passed by blaming other representative. For partisan issues they would go to the representative in their cluster who is most likely to agree with them like in STV.
===Cons===
All the "best" candidates may be running in one district so when it is won they don’t compete in other races. The parties would have to decide who to run in what riding. It has been argues that a system where representative have to at least have a mailing address in the riding they hope to represent is important for representation. In the last 2015 Canadian federal election an MP won a district without having a mailing address in Canada.
[[Category:Multi-winner voting methods]]
| |||