PAL representation: Difference between revisions

===Third example to highlight advantages===

Imagine a simple state with three congressional districts and three parties called R, C, L and D (any resemblance to real party names is... purely coincidental). There is just one statewide candidate each for the C and L parties, who both declare that they prefer R. But the R candidate in district 1 is corrupt, and so is not approved by either the C or L candidates. Also, some R voters from district 1 choose to write in the R candidates from other districts rather than vote for their corrupt hometown candidate.

{| class="wikitable"

! width=10% style="background-color: #ffdddd" | District

! width=18% style="background-color: #ffdddd" |R

! width=18% style="background-color: #ffdddd" |L

! width=18% style="background-color: #ffdddd" |C

! width=18% style="background-color: #ffdddd" |D

|-

| District 1 || 60% (50% R1, 4% R2, 6% R3) || 0% || 10% || 30%

|-

| District 2 || 35% (+4%) || 5% || 20% || 40%

|-

| District 3 || 25% (+6%) || 5% || 0% || 70%

|-

| combined candidate || || 10% of a district || 30% of a district ||

|-

| statewide party total || 40% of state || 3.33% of state || 10% of state || 46.67% of state

|}

The threshold to win is 75% of one district's vote. The elimination proceeds as follows:

1. Eliminate L; votes go to R2 (44%) and R3 (36%).

2. Eliminate C, leaving R2 59% and R3 51%.

3. Eliminate D1, leaving D2 55% and D3 85%. D3 is elected; their excess 10% leave D2 at 65%.

4. Finally, eliminate R1, leaving R2 84% and R3 76%; elect R2 and R3.

After the STV process is done, the winners are R2, R3, and D3. R2 is assigned to districts 2 and 3, leaving R3 assigned to represent district 1; and D3 is assigned to all three districts.

Thus, in the example, any voter for R, C, or L would know that their representative was the R assigned to their district, and any D voter would know that their representative was D3.

This example shows some of the advantages of PAL representation. In district 1, voters clearly prefer party R, but their local R candidate is corrupt; PAL gives them an R representative who is cleaner. In district 2, party D has a plurality, but the majority is anti-D; PAL respects that anti-D majority by still electing â…” of the state reps from party R. And party R can't neutralize D voters by gerrymandering them into district 3; If D could get an extra 10% in any district, they'd take an extra seat. Finally, the minor parties C and L do not elect any representatives because, even combined, they have not reached the threshold of 75% of one district (25% statewide); but their concerns cannot be ignored, as either one still could hold the balance of power between R and D for one seat.