|
|
Post by Róibeard Laira on Dec 22, 2008 21:50:04 GMT -6
After finding myself too busy even to vote for my own bill I was suprised at its failure to pass. Would anyone care to comment on specific things they would like to see changed in the bill, or state to the effect that the current situation is fine and doesn't need to be fixed?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Dec 23, 2008 6:40:50 GMT -6
The randomness is what really killed it for me. It can really be a conflict of interest for the SoS. For instance, if the SoS is a GRUMP member, he'll probably "randomly" assign the seats to the GRUMP.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Dec 23, 2008 8:40:01 GMT -6
The randomness is what really killed it for me. It can really be a conflict of interest for the SoS. For instance, if the SoS is a GRUMP member, he'll probably "randomly" assign the seats to the GRUMP. Now, for the reason I voted against it: "The Secretary of State shall employ whatever mathematical formulae and calculations he or she wishes in implementing the random process, although use of percentile dice is encouraged to celebrate our national pastime." It calls for a solution that is even more gray and hidden than is already in place. It also does not demand that the SAME reasoning / formulae / calculations be used for each election. ( Which, I guess, is why it's reffered to as random.) Had it been precisely defined as to exactly what methods the seats should be allocated, I would have voted for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Dec 23, 2008 8:47:52 GMT -6
May I quote myself from elswhere, Mick?: 39RZ8 I vote CONTRA. How does the SoS "randomly" select the party that receives the whole seats? What if we have a really biased-towards-one-party-SoS (not that we have one now). Basically, of course I trust you not to do something like that. But in 50 years, who knows who the new SoS will be and what he/she will do? Look at Katherine Harris, she was supposed to be a good SoS for Florida, but look what happened there! Dréu Edit: bbcode error |
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Dec 30, 2008 18:30:21 GMT -6
There are online, independently verifiable die-rollers that could be used in this situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2008 19:19:53 GMT -6
....or, perhaps we can work on developing a formula..
Shooting craps for Cosa seats just seems to be in poor taste, in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Dec 30, 2008 20:17:07 GMT -6
Oh, THAT might be a fair reason for condemning it. *grins* Or not. But I'm saying it can be a verified crapshoot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2008 20:49:59 GMT -6
Well, since the OrgLaw does state that MCs should represent a geographic constituency, perhaps...and this is just me thinkin' wildly here...we could change the manner in which MCs are elected to completely eliminate fractional seats.
And you guys know how often I propose radical changes, should we mark the calendar?
|
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Dec 30, 2008 21:11:49 GMT -6
Or we examine how National List PR systems elect fractional seats elsewhere? We currently have a proportionally elected (but legislatively diffuse and weak) lower house and a first-past-the-post (and legislatively powerful) upper house. I quite like that mix, though as I've suggested elsewhere, considering the relative powers of the two houses could be something to do.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Dec 30, 2008 22:37:04 GMT -6
May I quote myself from elswhere, Mick?: 39RZ8 I vote CONTRA. How does the SoS "randomly" select the party that receives the whole seats? What if we have a really biased-towards-one-party-SoS (not that we have one now). Basically, of course I trust you not to do something like that. But in 50 years, who knows who the new SoS will be and what he/she will do? Look at Katherine Harris, she was supposed to be a good SoS for Florida, but look what happened there! Dréu Edit: bbcode errorMight I suggest in the future, instead of referring to THE SoS, you refer to A, so that I am not confused in my aging brain if you are talking about the current SoS, or a future SoS? My apologies. |
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Dec 31, 2008 9:17:32 GMT -6
I can't imagine how fractional seats could be eliminated other than 1) by going to single-member districts, or 2) by making the number of Cosa seats flexible so that they are linked to the number of votes cast. Can anyone think of any other method?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2008 9:58:53 GMT -6
Maybe we can't eliminate fractional seats, but perhaps we can simplify them us a combination of Sir Cresti's solutions...
Let's say we change the number of seats to 203. Every 29 seats represent a geographic constituency. Basically, every Province has 29 seats.
The issue becomes "What happens if, say the RUMP takes 66% of the vote." This would award the RUMP 19.14 seats. Then if the PP takes 33% of the vote, they are given 9.57.
What do we do with the fractional seats? At the national level, all of these fractions add up to a number of seats. At the provincial level, it represents a significantly lower number. In the case of the above example, it leaves us with .99 of a seat assuming somehow there is a third part that only takes 1%.
I think the fairest way to distribute that seat would be to the party that had the highest fractional seat.
The RUMP has 19.14, the PP has 9.57 and the third party has .29 seats. We take all of the fractions, make one complete seat and I say, in this example, give it to the PP.
If we tried this at the national level, we could run into problems. We could end up handing over 10 seats to a party that only took 1.99% of the vote. But at the Provincial level we would be dealing with significantly fewer potential whole seats.
|
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Dec 31, 2008 9:58:54 GMT -6
I suggest we look at how the Israeli Knesset and perhaps the Spanish lower house operate...
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Dec 31, 2008 11:53:02 GMT -6
Let's say we change the number of seats to 203. Every 29 seats represent a geographic constituency. Basically, every Province has 29 seats. We actually had provincial constituencies until a few Cosas ago (allocated according to provincial population rather than divided evenly). I liked that system, but an amendment was passed changing us to a single national constituency. I do think, though, that provincial constituencies result in more fractional seats overall because with a single constituency the seats that would be fractional in each province get aggregated. I suggest we look at how the Israeli Knesset and perhaps the Spanish lower house operate... From the Knesset web site: The lists that have passed the qualifying threshold receive a number of Knesset seats which is propotional to their electoral strength. This is done by the division of valid votes given to the lists which passed the qualifying threshold, by 120, in order to determine how many votes entitle a list to a single seat. In the elections to the second and seventh Knessets the excess votes (the votes received by a list which passed the qualifying threshold, but are not sufficient for a whole seat) were distributed to those lists which had the largest number of excess votes (the Hare method). In the elections to the first Knesset, and since the elections to the eighth, the excess votes are distributed to the lists with the largest number of voters per seat - a method known in the world as Hagenbach-Bischoff (de-Hondt), and is known in Israel as the Bader-Ofer method - named after MKs Yohanan Bader (Gahal) and Avraham Ofer (Alignment) who proposed its adoption. Two lists can reach an agreement regarding the distribution of excess votes between them before the elections. Spain's Congress of Deputies has something like 52 constituencies, most with seats in the single digits. New Zealand uses proportional representation on a national level, by the Sainte-Laguë method. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2008 12:33:49 GMT -6
It may result in more fractional seats, one way that the allocation could differ would be the provincial assembly can vote to designate those fractional seats to a party after the General Election.
Then we have some of the benefit of a Runoff without waiting for too many individuals.
|
|
