Anonymous user
PAL representation: Difference between revisions
→Advantages
imported>Homunq (→Note) |
imported>Homunq |
||
Line 40:
:* and the districts are divided fairly so that plurality would give a proportional result
:... then LAP representation (like SODA-PR or 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.
== Justification ==
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.
| |||