PAL representation: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted
VisualWikitext
imported>Homunq
No edit summary
imported>Homunq
No edit summary
Line 1: 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. Unlike with single-member districts (as currently used in the US and UK), an overwhelming majority (not just a little more than half) of voters will have a representative whom they've actually supported in some way. It is designed to be a gentle change from a single-member-district system, and districts can remain unchanged. Most representatives will represent multiple districts, and each district will have one representative from each represented party. For instance, if two parties divide the legislature 50:50, then each representative will have two districts and each district will have two representatives (one from each party).
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.

In fact, if the district map is fair and the voters are happy with the balance of power, LAP voting will elect exactly the same representatives as single-member districts, and the only difference will be that those in a district that had gone to the "wrong" party will know which existing representative from their party represents them.


The basic idea is:
The basic idea is:
Line 38: Line 36:
== Advantages ==
== Advantages ==


*Proportional

:*Thus, a large majority of voters have real representation
⚫
*If:
*Voter-centric
⚫
:* all votes are for one of the two main-party candidates in the voter's district,
:*Voters, not party bureaucrats, decide which members of a given party get seated.
⚫
:* all candidates approve everyone from their party
*Geographical
⚫
:* and the districts are divided fairly so that plurality would give a proportional result
:*Representatives know who is a constituent and voters know who is their representative.
⚫
:... 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.
:*Fair attention for local issues.
*Prudent; not a radical change from single-member districts
⚫
:*If:
⚫
::* all votes are for one of the two main-party candidates in the voter's district,
⚫
::* 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.


== Justification ==
== 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.

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.
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.
Retrieved from "https://electowiki.org/wiki/PAL_representation"