Comments on: Another candidate-centric Iraq proposal

By: MSS

MSS — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:15:01 +0000

Regarding James’s comment on SNTV, I suppose it depends on what one means by “fair,” but if magnitude is high (as it presumably would have to be, if Jack’s concerns about districting dominated the discussion), SNTV is extremely inclusive of minorities. Those presumably would include minorities outside the current ethno-partisan groupings.

(I am certainly not advocating either SNTV or MMP in this case, by the way.)

By: MSS

MSS — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:11:47 +0000

Evidence that “list logic” dominates campaigning under MMP is sketchy at best. And districts really do not have to be equal in voter population if the list tier is big enough to offset disproportionality.

So, I guess I am suggesting turning Jack’s logic against MMP here on its head.

By: Jack

Jack — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 21:21:36 +0000

One more anticipated objection to STV in Iraq. To the extent one wanted voters to use most of their rankings, district magnitudes would need to be much smaller than the governorates themselves. As with SMD, MMP, etc., the lack of data and controversies around districting would be problematic.

By: Jack

Jack — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:58:26 +0000

I agree that STV-PR could be better for the context in two ways: proportionality and the incentive for opponents to cross-endorse.

But I suspect STV would run into implementation issues and objections. Just to name a few:

- allegedly prohibitive voter education efforts
- mass innumeracy
- an allegedly confusing seat allocation process upsetting a result’s legitimacy
– general lack of backing the democracy assistance community

By: James Gilmour

James Gilmour — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:55:09 +0000

STV-PR would offer an even better solution. SNTV does not ensure fair representation.