PAL representation: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
imported>Homunq |
imported>Homunq |
||
| Line 158: | Line 158: | ||
*More seriously, a mixed member system would be totally unacceptable to existing incumbents, as it would draw too many of them out of their existing districts. And perhaps this is in part a valid concern. It is true that the public interest is to have representatives who are accountable, not complacent; but that does not imply that there's a value in change simply for change's sake. |
*More seriously, a mixed member system would be totally unacceptable to existing incumbents, as it would draw too many of them out of their existing districts. And perhaps this is in part a valid concern. It is true that the public interest is to have representatives who are accountable, not complacent; but that does not imply that there's a value in change simply for change's sake. |
||
*[http://mathaware.org/mam/08/EliminateGerrymandering.pdf Fair Majority Voting], as used in Belgian municipal elections, resolves all of the concerns above, but it would be very hard to justify the fact that some representatives would lose with a majority vote. It's very hard to respond to a simple question like "Why should my opponent win with 45%, when I lose with 52%?" with a complex answer about party balance and compensating for gerrymandering. |
*[http://mathaware.org/mam/08/EliminateGerrymandering.pdf Fair Majority Voting], as used in Belgian municipal elections, resolves all of the concerns above, but it would be very hard to justify the fact that some representatives would lose with a majority vote. It's very hard to respond to a simple question like "Why should my opponent win with 45%, when I lose with 52%?" with a complex answer about party balance and compensating for gerrymandering. |
||
**Note that PAL representation would actually give the same result as FMV, but would provide an easy justification for that result. Responding to the question above, you could say: "Each representative needs exactly the same number of votes to win. Your opponent got the vote transfers they needed to reach that threshold and you didn't. Those votes were transferred in accordance with the explicit will of the voters, and to ignore them would be to disenfranchise those voters." |
**Note that PAL representation would actually tend to give the same result as FMV, but would provide an easy justification for that result. Responding to the question above, you could say: "Each representative needs exactly the same number of votes to win. Your opponent got the vote transfers they needed to reach that threshold and you didn't. Those votes were transferred in accordance with the explicit will of the voters, and to ignore them would be to disenfranchise those voters." |
||
== Note on legality in US == |
== Note on legality in US == |
||
US Public Law 90-196, passed in 1967 by a voice (anonymous) vote, gave citizenship to one man. An amendment, of unrecorded sponsorship, added the following text: |
US Public Law 90-196, passed in 1967 by a voice (anonymous) vote, gave citizenship to one man. An amendment, of unrecorded sponsorship, added the following text: |
||