Anonymous user
PAL representation: Difference between revisions
→Compared to other PR systems
imported>Homunq |
imported>Homunq |
||
Line 158:
*A global open-list system such as STV would have unacceptably-complex ballots. Who can keep track of dozens of candidates, let alone fully rank them?
*A districtless system would be too radical a change. People are used to having "their" representative.
*A multimember-district system
*A mixed member system
*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
*Balinski's "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."
| |||