3 ms·

Which doesn't ensure local representation.

by krona 9y ago

ant6n 9y ago
Single transferable vote (with multi member ridings, STV) and mixed-member-proportional (MMP) solve both proportional and local representation, in two very different ways.
vidarh 9y ago
Plenty of proportional systems guarantees local representation by the use of multi-member constituencies, for example, and maintain as high proportionality as possible by the use of levelling seats. E.g. to take Norway as an example because I know it well: Norway is split into 19 electoral regions (for a population of ~5m), but could easily have been split into even smaller regions with the use of a few more levelling seats. People cast a vote for a party list (which they may amend, to affect ordering of the candidates if they wish, but most people don't), and seats are allocated to the party with the most votes first, and then counted votes are removed, and the threshold for the next seat is adjusted using the Webster/Sainte-Laguë method. This initially gives a pretty good proportional result. Any "wasted" votes after the allocation of the regional seats gets summed up at a national level to be used to assigned levelling seats - one seat in each constituency is currently assigned as a levelling seat assigned based on the national vote, so that parties due a levelling seat should ideally get it in the constituency where they came closest to winning a direct seat where there is still a free levelling seat when "their" seat is being allocated. The end result is that while constituencies are larger, most people will generally find that there's a representative in their constituency that is at least sympathetic to their issues, whereas under non-proportional systems the geographic link is largely a sham for partisan issues - my local MP (in the UK) used to be a Conservative, that I could safely bet on would oppose anything I cared about and nothing I might want to bring up would get a positive response. I'd rather have actual representation than a geographic link to someone who opposed the policies of about half of his constituency (and the problem remains now - I have an MP now that I like, but about half have one that will oppose their issues). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster/Sainte-Lagu%C3%AB_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster/Sainte-Lagu%C3%AB_meth...
gmiller123456 9y ago
>Which doesn't ensure local representation. Ignoring the fact that your statement isn't true (as pointed out by others). The current system does not ensure local representation either. People generally vote for their favorite party, and do not base their decision on the policies of particular candidates. On the off chance that you actually hear anything out of your local representative, it will most likely be about notional level issues rather than anything happening in your district. When non-partisan issues come up, your rep is more likely to side with whichever company gave them money, and it'll be decided behind closed doors, it'll be added as a rider deep inside some bill you won't read. On the off chance that you actually read that part of that particular bill, you'll never know who was responsible for it.

Which doesn't ensure local representation.

by krona 9y ago

Which doesn't ensure local representation.

Single transferable vote (with multi member ridings, STV) and mixed-member-proportional (MMP) solve both proportional and local representation, in two very different ways.

vidarh 9y ago

Plenty of proportional systems guarantees local representation by the use of multi-member constituencies, for example, and maintain as high proportionality as possible by the use of levelling seats. E.g. to take Norway as an example because I know it well: Norway is split into 19 electoral regions (for a population of ~5m), but could easily have been split into even smaller regions with the use of a few more levelling seats. People cast a vote for a party list (which they may amend, to affect ordering of the candidates if they wish, but most people don't), and seats are allocated to the party with the most votes first, and then counted votes are removed, and the threshold for the next seat is adjusted using the Webster/Sainte-Laguë method. This initially gives a pretty good proportional result. Any "wasted" votes after the allocation of the regional seats gets summed up at a national level to be used to assigned levelling seats - one seat in each constituency is currently assigned as a levelling seat assigned based on the national vote, so that parties due a levelling seat should ideally get it in the constituency where they came closest to winning a direct seat where there is still a free levelling seat when "their" seat is being allocated. The end result is that while constituencies are larger, most people will generally find that there's a representative in their constituency that is at least sympathetic to their issues, whereas under non-proportional systems the geographic link is largely a sham for partisan issues - my local MP (in the UK) used to be a Conservative, that I could safely bet on would oppose anything I cared about and nothing I might want to bring up would get a positive response. I'd rather have actual representation than a geographic link to someone who opposed the policies of about half of his constituency (and the problem remains now - I have an MP now that I like, but about half have one that will oppose their issues). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster/Sainte-Lagu%C3%AB_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster/Sainte-Lagu%C3%AB_meth...

gmiller123456 9y ago

>Which doesn't ensure local representation. Ignoring the fact that your statement isn't true (as pointed out by others). The current system does not ensure local representation either. People generally vote for their favorite party, and do not base their decision on the policies of particular candidates. On the off chance that you actually hear anything out of your local representative, it will most likely be about notional level issues rather than anything happening in your district. When non-partisan issues come up, your rep is more likely to side with whichever company gave them money, and it'll be decided behind closed doors, it'll be added as a rider deep inside some bill you won't read. On the off chance that you actually read that part of that particular bill, you'll never know who was responsible for it.