Anonymous user
PLACE FAQ: Difference between revisions
→What hashtag should I use for proportional representation?: #ProRep, not #PropRep (seems to have won the battle)
(→What hashtag should I use for proportional representation?: #ProRep, not #PropRep (seems to have won the battle)) |
|||
Line 59:
=== What hashtag should I use for proportional representation? ===
Unfortunately, the initials "PR" are highly ambiguous; they could refer to Puerto Rico, Public Relations, or a Pull Request (used by programmers to collaboratively fix computer code). But the full words "proportional representation" are too long. Thus, #
=== What does #
Another definition of proportional representation methods is that they are designed to minimize wasted votes. When one party gets a seat proportion that is substantially better or worse than their vote proportion, it must be because they are wasting less or more of their voting power than average. Thus minimizing wasted votes implies getting a proportional result.
In other words: if you want the best chance that your vote will matter and you will be represented, you should be looking for a #
=== Is proportional representation just a theory? ===
Certainly not! Over 80% of OECD countries use some form of #
=== Should advocates of different #
Of course. (Except for closed list, which is strictly worse than open list.)
The various #
== PLACE voting: process (how) ==
Line 359:
Also note that this strategy means that a third party would forego its ability to precisely pick a representative they ''do'' like in order to knockout one they ''don't'' like. From a social point of view, it seems that that's at least arguably a legitimate use of their voting power.
== Other #
=== How does PLACE compare to single transferable vote (STV) with multimember districts? ===
Line 367:
Note that the term "ranked choice voting" (RCV) is sometimes used as a catch-all brand for both STV and its single-winner equivalent, IRV. As a voting theorist, I find that term muddies the waters; there are plenty of ranked voting methods, both single- and multi-winner, aside from these two. What's worse, RCV activists often talk as if RCV were a synonym for voting reform as a whole. We should unite to #endFPTP, not try to paint our proposal as the only option.
STV is a #
* PLACE has simpler ballots. Instead of having to rank each candidate, you can just pick one.
Line 399:
In practice, OLPR usually goes hand-in-hand with a minimum party threshold. For instance, the rule might be that a party with fewer than 5% of the votes gets no seats.
OLPR is a #
* PLACE has greater voter power and fewer partially-wasted votes in choosing an intraparty faction
Line 423:
In practice, MMP usually goes hand-in-hand with a minimum party threshold. For instance, the rule might be that a party with fewer than 5% of the votes gets no seats.
MMP is a #
* PLACE has greater freedom for voters, because they're not restricted to vote inside their district.
Line 465:
This creates an incentive to politicize rules and suppress the vote. Security against voter fraud is often cited by those wanting restrictive voting rules, but with only a tiny handful of fraud cases for millions of votes, this seems disingenuous.
Those of us who favor #
Good organizations on this issue in the US: [https://www.brennancenter.org/ Brennan Center], [http://www.commoncause.org/ Common Cause].
Line 471:
=== Single-winner voting methods ===
The problems with FPTP do not apply only to multi-winner legislative races; they are just as bad in single-winner executive races for offices like President, Governor, or Mayor. In those cases, the solution is not #
Another option that gets mentioned for single-winner is IRV (also annoyingly called RCV). This is promoted by the largest US voting reform nonprofit, FairVote. Unfortunately, while they do good work on #
==== Electoral college and national popular vote ====
Line 491:
=== What are some ways that PLACE could pass? ===
In Canada: If it gets enough vetting from academics prior to the BC #
In the USA: Short version: Attract activists from across the political spectrum, then pass it in a partisan vote by a Democratic congress in around 2021. Democrats could impose it only on states that have been highly gerrymandered through a partisan process; since the impact of this would largely fall on "red" states, this would be relatively politically easy to get Democratic votes for.
Line 529:
Of course, the best constitutional arguments in the world would be worthless if it faced a Supreme Court with 5 judges ready to twist logic to the degree they did in ''Bush v. Gore'' or ''Shelby County''. Still, with an impartial court, this can very much pass constitutional muster.
In fact, because it still has single-member districts, PLACE voting could be implemented at the state level with no changes in federal law, unlike other #
=== How can we convince different specific communities in the USA to support PLACE? ===
| |||