Taken from an e-mail conversation of 23-25 July 2000 with RLC, his questions are in blockquotes with a red bar to the side as always.
Sir, i am not at all sure what a PR style list is. Sir, does it mean that a part puts up a list for national government and those who attain office would be based of the percentage vote they received?
The party creates a list of names of people they'd like elected, in the order they want them. If they get 1 seat, #1 on the list gets it, if they get 435 seats, nrs. 1-435 get them in that order.
In some countries the list is open, the list starts out in party order, and the people put check marks next to the ones they want elected first, with election in order of most approvals, with any remaining seats allocated in partisan order. (This system would also permit write-ins)
The problem with a closed list is that the first 5 are the party leaders, then the rest are their flunkies in order of obedience. Open lists are better, but still breed party hacks.
Sir, if i am understanding this system correctly member # 55 has no way of proving that he or she was actually is a better vote getter then say # 5 and thus merit better consideration by the party.
Exactly in a closed list. Even in an open list only #1's opinions count. In STV, there's still personal choice between candidates on the basis of personality that makes things a lot clearer.
For example, if a party leader and a bright young star are running for the Council, and both get elected and they carry the largest possible proportion of Parlaiment, how do you know who brought in the vote and really diserves leadership?
Under my system, it's simple, look at the cumulative votes. If the young star was carrying the ticket, and the party leader mainly rode his coattails, it'll be obvious, if the young star captured the immagination of the country and brought out 50% of the vote for her and her party, with only the die-hard partisans voting for the party leader, then the equasions look something like this:
Since their party got 2 members this election, formula 2 is used,
So, her mandate comes out to 112 and 1/3, while the leader's mandate comes out to 19 and 1/3. If the other two members elected got mandates of 27 and 30 respectively, then the she gets 1 + (112.333 / 188.6666 * 96) or 58 while he gets 11 cumulative votes (the others get 15 and 16, respectively), and she gets 5.3 times as much say in appointments, taxes, and appropriations over the next year as he does.
Whereas in a List PR system, since they got 50% of the vote, it dosn't really matter how many people promoted her over him; they both get elected and since he's the party leader, he remains more powerfull even though she's clearly the people's choice. Though the good result will certainly call attention to her in the party, which she probably would've gotten as a rising star anyway, she gets almost no additional policy control.
Sir, do you see the representative more or less being held and feeling responsible?
Depends on who you take responsibility as meaning. Is he/she responsible to the population at large? No. And they shouldn't be, accountability to 50% + 1 members of the population is exactly equal to a tyrrany of the majority.
Under STV, each politician is responsible solely to his own political constituentcy in his district. The politicians are much more responsive to those constituentcies, and not at all to any other. However, each group has the ability to much more easily become a vital constituancy to some politician, and so to be amply represented by that politician.
The system as a whole becomes much more responsive to everyone's needs in this way, and individuals gain more political clout, because they are much more important to particular politicians. It's a recipie for diversity and minority representation.
In a 4 member STV district, 75% of the population can hate one of the four reps, and he stays in, but if he loses just 1 ranking (1st. to 2nd) in 1% of his core constituentcy, he's out. He can thus represent them to the best of his abilities, with complete responsibility; and let the other 3 politicians do the same for their own groups. Taken together, the 4 represent almost everyone.
Compare this to the winner-take-all system where one less than 50% of the population can hate the candidate and not get represented at all besides.
| |
| |