[Membership] Could this actually be the horse? I.e. the answer?

[Eric Weisberg <weisberg@texoma.net>]

At Molly's suggestion, I am bringing this to the
"membership" list, though I would prefer to post to the IFWP
list to keep everyone there up to speed.  Are any of us not
also on IFWP?

I do not think I have gotten my points on cumulative 
voting/proportionate representation/STV across to anyone.  
Please think through the following questions with me to 
see where I may have missed the boat. 


"Molly E. Shaffer" wrote:
(in response to my inquiry whether cumulative voting
mechanisms
such as STV were on the Singapore agenda)

> Eric,

> ...it's hard to talk about what the exact mechanisms for
> voting should be when you're still working out who can vote, whether the
> voters are divided into classes, etc.  

Isn't the opposite true--that cumulative voting mechanisms
such as STV solve the "class" issue "naturally," and
dynamically?  And, don't they provide a
metric for deciding how many seats should be filled in EACH
election?  

What is the point of proportionate representation
mechanisms,
especially with a sophisticated electorate?  Isn't it to
determine and provide representation to the various
interests in proportion to their relative size? 

Doesn't this save you from having to artificially choose
some interests for representation and disenfranchise others? 

Doesn't this mechanism change the interests represented
according to the current issues without the need for a
revolution or decision to either expand the board or remove
some interests (if you have representation categories)?

Do we have empirical (or other) data indicating the
advantages 
and disadvantages of various election mechanisms, such as
STV?