[fvc-wat-disc] Questions Re LPR

[Donald Fraser]

OK thanks, again, Byron ... sorry about not explaining #3 clearly

3. Any ranking that is not based on good information about policy or
candidate tends to be just guessing (randomness). With up to 25 spaces on
the ballot (I realize that only the top 5 may be actually used), there is a
lot of room for just guessing. If the guesswork interferes with first
choices too much, then the elected MP may not be the best MP in a riding.

cheers,
Don

On 20 April 2017 at 13:01, Byron Weber Becker <bwbecker at golden.net> wrote:

>
> > On Apr 20, 2017, at 11:59 AM, Donald Fraser <donaldafraser at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > thanks, Byron, for all your answers:
> >
> > 1. So after your simulation, how close was LPR to being proportional
> according to Party, which is what most people think of when PR is
> mentioned? Since bills are crafted, voted on and passed by Party, I can't
> see that proportionality measured by any other criteria makes any sense.
> MPs vote with their Party no matter how proportionality itself is measured.
>
> Gallagher Index of 4.01 on my simulation of the 2015 election.  LPR+, which
> adds a top-up layer like MMP would be even better.
>
> > 2. What I meant by ballots being 'equivalent' is that all ballots
> 'contribute equally in determining the number of seats a party gets in
> Ottawa'. I think only something like my simple MMPR ballot (attached) could
> guarantee that.
>
> Again, you seem fixated on parties whereas I’d be most concerned about
> being able to select the individuals voters want.  If they’re choosing
> those individual candidates based on party affiliation, that’s fine.  But
> restricting that choice to only party affiliation is really limiting.
>
> In LPR, all ballots are equally effective (if you rank a reasonable number
> of candidates).
>
> > 3. If we agree that the choice of 1 on the ballot determines the Party
> choice of the voter, then we also have to agree that any further choices on
> that ballot affect other voters' choice of 1, either voting for it or
> against it. This is what bothers me. The choice of 1 represents a voter's
> solid choice based on his/her knowledge of policy and candidate. Further
> choices tend toward shallow, uninformed voting, thus introducing the random
> element that veers away from getting the best candidate in a riding elected.
>
> I don’t follow you on this one at all.
>
> > 4. My choice, for the reasons stated is MMPR with FPTP used for choosing
> the local candidate. Any other method for choosing the local candidate
> tends toward the centrist party ... for us that would mean that even though
> we get a proportional Parliament, the Liberals would have a larger
> percentage of primary candidates elected in local ridings than the other
> parties. The other parties would have a greater percentage of top-up MPs.
> The attached ballot which everybody has seen gives every voter 2 votes, one
> for candidate, one for party. In my preferred system BOTH of those votes
> count for proportionality, so a voter CAN vote for 2 parties if he likes a
> candidate of a different party than his party choice. Most of the time a
> voter chooses the same party as that of his/her preferred candidate
>
> MMP has a lot going for it.  But it also needs to either enlarge
> parliament by about 50% OR enlarge the ridings by about 50%.  Some people
> are fine with that; many aren’t.  I’d also prefer to have a broader choice
> for my local MP.  I often don’t feel particularly well represented by a
> single MP chosen by FPTP.  I’d rather have more choice, which LPR, RU-PR
> (in urban areas), and STV all offer.
>
> Byron
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.thinkers.org/pipermail/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org/attachments/20170420/1912c2b0/attachment-0001.htm>