|
|
|
|
|
|
by taoistextremist
3109 days ago
|
|
|
STV itself merely refers to the voting system. If by "multi-winner" you mean multimember districts, that's still very susceptible to gerrymandering. Anything involving districting is, you can still split up populations so they have weaker representation, even under proportional systems, by making their representation much weaker in many districts and overly strong in a few. I think Germany has a good solution where there's single-winner districts along with a proportional list. I also think giving authority of redistricting to an authority that can't directly benefit from it could also work. |
|
|
That is what I mean. (In theory you could have an election with one enormous constituency under STV, but I accept that it wouldn't be very practical at government level, even if it works well for electing the boards of non-profit organisations.)
> Anything involving districting is, you can still split up populations so they have weaker representation, even under proportional systems, by making their representation much weaker in many districts and overly strong in a few.
True, but if I understand correctly that's about unequal district population, rather than gerrymandering. Proportional systems with a single constituency or compensatory List PR largely avoid concerns about districting.
> I think Germany has a good solution where there's single-winner districts along with a proportional list.
Germany does indeed have a good system, but I'd prefer it without the single-winner districts and with most representatives elected by STV (ie, the STV+ system described in the last paragraph of my other post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15970289 ).