Anonymous user
PAL representation: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
imported>Homunq |
imported>Homunq No edit summary |
||
Line 6:
* Voters may vote on the candidates in their or nearby districts, or write in candidates from farther off. Single-candidate "bullet" votes are delegated to that candidate but voters may refuse to delegate by voting for more than one candidate.
* A legislature is elected by a version of [[STV]] (with fractional transfers and a Droop quota.)
* For each party with more than one seat, the districts are automatically divided among the party representatives.
* Your representative is the member of the party you voted for who is representing your district.
Line 27:
#* The iteration number is increased by 1. This reduces the quota Q, as if it were the Droop quota for a legislature one seat bigger.
#* The counting process is rerun from scratch, starting with step 3.
# For each party with more than one seat, the districts are divided among the party representatives through the following automatic "draft" procedure:
#*
#*At each step, the representative drafts the unassigned district which gave them the most direct votes.
Your representative is the member of the party you voted for who is representing your district. If no member of the party you voted for was elected, then you may look at the public preferences of your chosen candidate to see which of your district's representatives is yours.
Line 61 ⟶ 59:
</td></tr></table>
==
===Vote transfer procedure===
Note: This example does not work well to show the district-based part of PAL representation, because there is no way to divide up the voters into three equal-sized districts; and even if there were, real-life voters would never vote this homogeneously; and the example elects only one "representative" from each "party". Thus, the example only covers the modified-STV system, and does not include the final district "draft" phase.
Line 126 ⟶ 125:
If Knoxville had not joined a party with Chatanooga, then Chatanooga would have been eliminated, and Knoxville would have been the final site. But Chatanooga could have responded by threatening to prefer a second Nashville site, or even Memphis 2, over Knoxville, if Knoxville would not cooperate in the Eastern party. In the end, Knoxville's strategy may or may not have worked. In general, such strategic gamesmanship would be less profitable and more dangerous in a real election, with more seats overall as well as a significant degree of polling uncertainty.
===District assignment ("draft")===
Say that party P has elected 3 representatives, A, B, and C. There are 6 districts, with 1000 eligible voters each, and the following vote totals:
{| class="wikitable"
! width=10% style="background-color: #ffdddd" | District
! width=18% style="background-color: #ffdddd" | Total valid votes
! width=18% style="background-color: #ffdddd" | Direct votes for A
! width=18% style="background-color: #ffdddd" | Direct votes for B
! width=18% style="background-color: #ffdddd" | Direct votes for C
! width=18% style="background-color: #ffdddd" | Total party P votes
|-
| 1 || 600 || 300 || 60 || 40 || 400
|-
| 2 || 700 || 100 || 250 || 200 || 550
|-
| 3 || 650 || 100 || 59 || 41 || 200
|-
| 4 || 630 || 101 || 60 || 40 || 201
|-
| 5 || 670 || 70 || 60 || 70 || 200
|-
| 6 || 600 || 100 || 60 || 40 || 200
|}
District assignment proceeds in the following order: A:1, B:2, C:5, C:3, A:4, C:6. Note that C gets 3 districts where party P was weak, while B gets just 1 district each where party P was strong. Thus, at the end, A has 601 constituents; B, 550; and C, 600.
== Advantages ==
=== P ===
| |||