Anonymous user
PAL representation: Difference between revisions
→Third example to highlight advantages
imported>Homunq |
imported>Homunq |
||
Line 191:
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; even though many of them lazily vote for this local incumbent, 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.
== Advantages ==
| |||