Jump to content

PAL representation: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
imported>Homunq
imported>Homunq
No edit summary
Line 61:
 
== Justification ==
PAL 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 PAL 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, PAL 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.
Anonymous user
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.