I agree that multi-member districts filled via proportional representation is the best approach for city government. It reduces - or eliminates - the gerrymander incentive. It results in a significant group of residents gaining representation. I also think that city elections should be nonpartisan. I disagree that more than half of city council members should be elected during the high turnout presidential election years. Staggering the terms of council members facilitates continuity of long range plans. I have not determined my preferred method of proportional representation. The ability to audit election results should be a factor for selecting a preferred method.
> Staggering the terms of council members facilitates continuity of long range plans.
The counter to this is that it would be unheard of for a good number of incumbents not to be re-elected. And if that did happen, presumably it would be because they were really pretty bad.
staggering the terms means district magnitude is halved.
District Magnitude is the main determinant of proportionality/fairness. (STV and list PR produce pretty much same result at any DM)
staggered terms makes sense where the chamber is elected at large but District Magnitude would be too large.
New South Wales (Leg. council) elects at-large so uses staggered terms to bring DM to just 21. (DM would be the same if NSW used district that each covered half the state and did not use staggered terms.)
But generally any benefit from long-range plans produced by staggered terms is countered by great inertia - if voter opinion shifts, it likely would take two elections to change who has majority in the chamber.
with small DM, say less than four, small third parties have little chance of getting even one seat.
the essay suggested in the link you provide says this .".. at the end of the day, the legislative outcomes come down to the overall ideological average of the entire legislature...."
I don't see this at all - laws passed are produced by the majority in the legislature, not some average.
present politics is full of policy lurches and laws passed by legislative majorities that are not supported by majority of voters.
the idea that any election system would produce a representation or a legislature that reflects the average or satisfies all is like the myth that a single member in a district can represent all the voters in the district.
the member can only vote yes or no on each question, and that means what he says must disappoint some voters. in fact if a representative represented all or satisfied all, irrespective of who he is or who the voter is, then we would not need elections at all - any member would be fine for all voters.
But in fact elections matter, and that is why we need a fair system -
if we don't have proportional representation, we have disproportional representation.
if we don't have proportional representation, we have minority rule.
> I don't see this at all - laws passed are produced by the majority in the legislature, not some average.
well, technically _median_ not _average_. (there's no such thing as a "majority" per se, since policy issues can easily be produced which create condorcet cycles.) point is, this is true regardless of whether you use single-winner districts or proportional multi-winner districts.
> present politics is full of policy lurches and laws passed by legislative majorities that are not supported by majority of voters.
because we use plurality voting. and there are other corrupting/distortionary factors, like gerrymandering. anyway, this is orthogonal to the issue of single-winner districts vs multi-winner proportional voting. you'd essentially neutralize these effects with good single-winner non-proportional methods like approval voting. and the sortition-based michigan redistricting process has already shown us a practical way to eradicate gerrymandering (although an algorithmic approach like the shortest splitline algorithm would be better). so that one lone argument for proportional voting is largely nullified.
> the idea that any election system would produce a representation or a legislature that reflects the average or satisfies all is like the myth that a single member in a district can represent all the voters in the district.
this is a nonsensical statement. there's not even such thing as "satisfying all". one can only attempt to maximize the net utility of all voters. and there's no clear evidence that proportional methods do this better than good single-winner methods like score voting or approval voting.
the member can only vote yes or no on each question, and that means what he says must disappoint some voters. in fact if a representative represented all or satisfied all, irrespective of who he is or who the voter is, then we would not need elections at all - any member would be fine for all voters.
But in fact elections matter, and that is why we need a fair system -
if we don't have proportional representation, we have disproportional representation.
if we don't have proportional representation, we have minority rule.
The essay you linked as I quoted uses term "average", not median. either one is pie in the sky, in the sphere of real politics, IMO
Yes, there is a majority - bills are passed (or blocked) in legislatures by a majority of the members present at that time. ayes and noes determine whether or not a bill passes, not some greatest good or utility.
yes i agree with you -- how a legislature operates is separate from how it is elected.
whether PR is used or plurality - a majority of elected members pass or block bills. whether multimember districts re used or single-member districts is to do with district contests, not government performance -- but only if votes are pooled and multiple member elected can you have science-based fair elections - PR. so the framework of the district contests does help determine performance of the government.
there are four stages to elections -
-voter's vote - X vote, ranked vote, plural votes or single (whether voter casts vote for his preferred choice or votes in line with district expectations to get best chance to see vote used to elect someone, the dreaded strat. voting - vote in favor of the least hated of the big two.) and transfers if STV or IRV are used
-a district's result, plus top-up if MMP is used.
-make up of legislature - majority is one party or multiple parties?
-cabinet selected, and party caucus (or caucuses ) who have majority.
election does not produce measure of greatest utility, it elects members - and its effectiveness and democratic value is determined by counting how many votes are used to elect winners and how many were not, how a party's share of seats reflects its share of votes.
we might wish government operated to produce greatest good to greatest number or max. utility, but influence of privileged minorities (rich and powerful) trump the needs of the the masses.
But voting in election is done for a reason - to make government accountable to voters. if election results do not reflect votes cast, then it is futile experience. voters cannot rely on some social conscience that the government will maximize utility for all, if whole blocks of voters cannot even elect a representative to speak on its behalf. PR merely ensures that each substantial block of voters is able to elect its due share of members - whether those members will have any real power is up to the make-up of the legislature and how the government cabinet is chosen. An election system where most votes are not used to elect the winner is patently seen as unfair and that drives the will to PR. a vote that is ignored and elects no one is unsatisfying. many people shrug it off as it is so common but others do see it as unfair.
If governments "attempted to maximize the net utility of all voters" then there would be less cause for complaint but usually governments reward friends and punish enemies, in part in order to be re-elected - power corrupts, and they do as little as possible for parts of the state or country that did not support government.
and regional polarization is produced by plurality system caused by waste of votes, and that makes it easy for government to know where geographically they don't need votes, but under PR, 80 to 90 percent of valid votes are used (and those votes are satisfied at least to the role that they played in the election), and the government sees that its support is stronger in some places and weaker in others but every vote counts. every seat is safe and unsafe to a degree, all parts of state or country are seen as important. the benefits of PR work at all levels - in the legislature if no party has majority of seats, then inter-party cooperation is needed to pass bills that broadens the usefulness (utility?) of the government to more than just one party's voting block.
without PR, you have minority of voters determining majority of members and thus government. No good, not democratic
That said, multi-winner PR voting methods are a legitimately thorny issue. The Portland Charter Review Commission's voting methods subcommittee just endorsed STAR voting over IRV/RCV 3-1, so given that may be the direction things head in the state's largest city, here's a solid proposal for a PR form of score/STAR voting.
I agree that multi-member districts filled via proportional representation is the best approach for city government. It reduces - or eliminates - the gerrymander incentive. It results in a significant group of residents gaining representation. I also think that city elections should be nonpartisan. I disagree that more than half of city council members should be elected during the high turnout presidential election years. Staggering the terms of council members facilitates continuity of long range plans. I have not determined my preferred method of proportional representation. The ability to audit election results should be a factor for selecting a preferred method.
> Staggering the terms of council members facilitates continuity of long range plans.
The counter to this is that it would be unheard of for a good number of incumbents not to be re-elected. And if that did happen, presumably it would be because they were really pretty bad.
staggering the terms means district magnitude is halved.
District Magnitude is the main determinant of proportionality/fairness. (STV and list PR produce pretty much same result at any DM)
staggered terms makes sense where the chamber is elected at large but District Magnitude would be too large.
New South Wales (Leg. council) elects at-large so uses staggered terms to bring DM to just 21. (DM would be the same if NSW used district that each covered half the state and did not use staggered terms.)
But generally any benefit from long-range plans produced by staggered terms is countered by great inertia - if voter opinion shifts, it likely would take two elections to change who has majority in the chamber.
with small DM, say less than four, small third parties have little chance of getting even one seat.
well i strongly disagree that proportionality is "fairness" or that PR is inherently superior.
https://clayshentrup.medium.com/the-proportional-representation-fallacy-553846a383b3
the essay suggested in the link you provide says this .".. at the end of the day, the legislative outcomes come down to the overall ideological average of the entire legislature...."
I don't see this at all - laws passed are produced by the majority in the legislature, not some average.
present politics is full of policy lurches and laws passed by legislative majorities that are not supported by majority of voters.
the idea that any election system would produce a representation or a legislature that reflects the average or satisfies all is like the myth that a single member in a district can represent all the voters in the district.
the member can only vote yes or no on each question, and that means what he says must disappoint some voters. in fact if a representative represented all or satisfied all, irrespective of who he is or who the voter is, then we would not need elections at all - any member would be fine for all voters.
But in fact elections matter, and that is why we need a fair system -
if we don't have proportional representation, we have disproportional representation.
if we don't have proportional representation, we have minority rule.
> I don't see this at all - laws passed are produced by the majority in the legislature, not some average.
well, technically _median_ not _average_. (there's no such thing as a "majority" per se, since policy issues can easily be produced which create condorcet cycles.) point is, this is true regardless of whether you use single-winner districts or proportional multi-winner districts.
> present politics is full of policy lurches and laws passed by legislative majorities that are not supported by majority of voters.
because we use plurality voting. and there are other corrupting/distortionary factors, like gerrymandering. anyway, this is orthogonal to the issue of single-winner districts vs multi-winner proportional voting. you'd essentially neutralize these effects with good single-winner non-proportional methods like approval voting. and the sortition-based michigan redistricting process has already shown us a practical way to eradicate gerrymandering (although an algorithmic approach like the shortest splitline algorithm would be better). so that one lone argument for proportional voting is largely nullified.
> the idea that any election system would produce a representation or a legislature that reflects the average or satisfies all is like the myth that a single member in a district can represent all the voters in the district.
this is a nonsensical statement. there's not even such thing as "satisfying all". one can only attempt to maximize the net utility of all voters. and there's no clear evidence that proportional methods do this better than good single-winner methods like score voting or approval voting.
the member can only vote yes or no on each question, and that means what he says must disappoint some voters. in fact if a representative represented all or satisfied all, irrespective of who he is or who the voter is, then we would not need elections at all - any member would be fine for all voters.
But in fact elections matter, and that is why we need a fair system -
if we don't have proportional representation, we have disproportional representation.
if we don't have proportional representation, we have minority rule.
The essay you linked as I quoted uses term "average", not median. either one is pie in the sky, in the sphere of real politics, IMO
Yes, there is a majority - bills are passed (or blocked) in legislatures by a majority of the members present at that time. ayes and noes determine whether or not a bill passes, not some greatest good or utility.
yes i agree with you -- how a legislature operates is separate from how it is elected.
whether PR is used or plurality - a majority of elected members pass or block bills. whether multimember districts re used or single-member districts is to do with district contests, not government performance -- but only if votes are pooled and multiple member elected can you have science-based fair elections - PR. so the framework of the district contests does help determine performance of the government.
there are four stages to elections -
-voter's vote - X vote, ranked vote, plural votes or single (whether voter casts vote for his preferred choice or votes in line with district expectations to get best chance to see vote used to elect someone, the dreaded strat. voting - vote in favor of the least hated of the big two.) and transfers if STV or IRV are used
-a district's result, plus top-up if MMP is used.
-make up of legislature - majority is one party or multiple parties?
-cabinet selected, and party caucus (or caucuses ) who have majority.
election does not produce measure of greatest utility, it elects members - and its effectiveness and democratic value is determined by counting how many votes are used to elect winners and how many were not, how a party's share of seats reflects its share of votes.
we might wish government operated to produce greatest good to greatest number or max. utility, but influence of privileged minorities (rich and powerful) trump the needs of the the masses.
But voting in election is done for a reason - to make government accountable to voters. if election results do not reflect votes cast, then it is futile experience. voters cannot rely on some social conscience that the government will maximize utility for all, if whole blocks of voters cannot even elect a representative to speak on its behalf. PR merely ensures that each substantial block of voters is able to elect its due share of members - whether those members will have any real power is up to the make-up of the legislature and how the government cabinet is chosen. An election system where most votes are not used to elect the winner is patently seen as unfair and that drives the will to PR. a vote that is ignored and elects no one is unsatisfying. many people shrug it off as it is so common but others do see it as unfair.
If governments "attempted to maximize the net utility of all voters" then there would be less cause for complaint but usually governments reward friends and punish enemies, in part in order to be re-elected - power corrupts, and they do as little as possible for parts of the state or country that did not support government.
and regional polarization is produced by plurality system caused by waste of votes, and that makes it easy for government to know where geographically they don't need votes, but under PR, 80 to 90 percent of valid votes are used (and those votes are satisfied at least to the role that they played in the election), and the government sees that its support is stronger in some places and weaker in others but every vote counts. every seat is safe and unsafe to a degree, all parts of state or country are seen as important. the benefits of PR work at all levels - in the legislature if no party has majority of seats, then inter-party cooperation is needed to pass bills that broadens the usefulness (utility?) of the government to more than just one party's voting block.
without PR, you have minority of voters determining majority of members and thus government. No good, not democratic
My take on Richie is that he is a deeply dishonest political animal.
https://www.rangevoting.org/RichieOnApproval
That said, multi-winner PR voting methods are a legitimately thorny issue. The Portland Charter Review Commission's voting methods subcommittee just endorsed STAR voting over IRV/RCV 3-1, so given that may be the direction things head in the state's largest city, here's a solid proposal for a PR form of score/STAR voting.
https://clayshentrup.medium.com/sequential-reweighted-monroe-score-voting-a410d1d2727a
Another (very different) voting method based on asset voting is here.
https://medium.com/election-science/candidate-transferable-voting-4fa1ee608251