PAL representation: Difference between revisions

Line 1:

~~LAP~~ (Locally-Accountable Proportional) representation is a system for electing a legislature, such that ballot secrecy is preserved but each voter can know who their representative is. It's a proportional system, but designed to be a gentle change from a single-member-district system; districts can remain unchanged, and if single-member districts are giving fair proportions from cohesive parties, ~~LAP~~ representation will elect exactly the same members. The difference is that most representatives will represent multiple districts, and each district will have multiple representatives (one from each winning party). Thus, whereas currently only 60-70% of US voters voted for their representative, and many of those because they have no choice, with ~~LAP~~ voting over 80% overall, and over 95% in large states, would be guaranteed have a representative whom they'd supported directly or indirectly.

PAL (Locally-Accountable Proportional) representation is a system for electing a legislature, such that ballot secrecy is preserved but each voter can know who their representative is. It's a proportional system, but designed to be a gentle change from a single-member-district system; districts can remain unchanged, and if single-member districts are giving fair proportions from cohesive parties, PAL representation will elect exactly the same members. The difference is that most representatives will represent multiple districts, and each district will have multiple representatives (one from each winning party). Thus, whereas currently only 60-70% of US voters voted for their representative, and many of those because they have no choice, with PAL voting over 80% overall, and over 95% in large states, would be guaranteed have a representative whom they'd supported directly or indirectly.

The basic idea is:

Line 48:

::* all candidates approve everyone from their party

::* and the districts are divided fairly so that plurality would give a proportional result

::... then ~~LAP~~ representation (like Balinski's "Fair Representation") gives the same results as plurality. These assumptions will not generally be perfectly true, but they will generally be close to true, so ~~LAP~~ representation will give results that are recognizably similar to those of single-member districts. It is hoped that this would make it a more acceptable system to politicians who have won under single-winner rules.

::... then PAL representation (like Balinski's "Fair Representation") gives the same results as plurality. These assumptions will not generally be perfectly true, but they will generally be close to true, so PAL representation will give results that are recognizably similar to those of single-member districts. It is hoped that this would make it a more acceptable system to politicians who have won under single-winner rules.

== Justification ==

~~LAP~~ representation is inspired by Michel Balinski's "Fair Representation" and by [[SODA voting]]. From the former, which is used for municipal elections in Belgium, it inherits the combination of geographical districts and proportionality. However, unlike Fair Representation, each candidate elected by ~~LAP~~ representation has received (directly or indirectly) the same number of votes (except in rare, unavoidable cases when there are not enough candidates who get that number of votes). From SODA voting, ~~LAP~~ representation inherits the simple, spoilproof ballot format and the optional vote delegation.

PAL representation is inspired by Michel Balinski's "Fair Representation" and by [[SODA voting]]. From the former, which is used for municipal elections in Belgium, it inherits the combination of geographical districts and proportionality. However, unlike Fair Representation, each candidate elected by PAL representation has received (directly or indirectly) the same number of votes (except in rare, unavoidable cases when there are not enough candidates who get that number of votes). From SODA voting, PAL representation inherits the simple, spoilproof ballot format and the optional vote delegation.

A modified version of STV is used as the proportional system for simplicity. Other proportional systems (such as BTV [Bucklin Transferrable Vote]) would also work. The equal ranking, and resulting fractional division of votes, is necessary for three reasons. First, it allows for approval-style votes to be counted without complicating the ballot. Second, it allows candidates to exercise judgment independently from their party (disapproving of certain party members), but keeps the voter's judgment as primary. If candidates couldn't exercise judgment, parties would have to waste energy keeping out "crazy" candidates who affiliate only because of the transfer votes they might get. If candidates could fully-rank within the party, as would happen if the PR system were standard STV, there would be too many opportunities for logrolling, at a level of detail where voters wouldn't realistically keep track or hold candidates accountable. Third, equal-ranking allows us to claim that this system could, under reasonable circumstances, elect exactly the same representatives as a non-gerrymandered single-member-district system.