User:RodCrosby/QPR2: Difference between revisions
→Three or four member constituencies?: malapportionment difference
(→First members elected: also) |
(→Three or four member constituencies?: malapportionment difference) |
||
Line 160:
===Three or four member constituencies?===
While the basic proposal envisages reorganising into uniformly two-member constituencies, that may be impractical in some respects. Several natural units in the UK, such as cities, councils or counties currently have an odd number of single-member constituencies. To insist on units of two would result in either breaking these natural units or increasing ''malapportionment''. (Such malapportionment, however, would have no impact on the national outcome, unlike with single-member FPTP.)
There is no reason, in principle, why PR^2 could not accommodate a few 3-member seats. The trade-off would be that the quota in such seats would be somewhat lower at 25%, and some third-placed candidates could secure election in a three-seater. Some may find this inequitable; others may shrug it off as just a facet of a flexible system, of scant interest.
| |||