I’m also encouraged by the piece you reference on Amarillo. Semi-proportional is still worlds better than plurality, as you evidenced. As much as I like something other than single districts or multi-member plurality, I am starved to see STV spread beyond Cambridge, MA. It’s seeping slowly, but I still can’t wait. I want the US’s history of STV to come back to life.

How many nations manage to survive with a ONE house national legislative body ???

Two houses might only be used with overlapping terms — e.g. 2 year terms – 1 house in odd years, other house in even years.

Since there is only MORE govt or LESS govt any legislative body can technically have 3 members — or 2 members IF each has the actual number of votes received (unequal votes P.R.).

Reality check — about 25-30 percent minority rule in ALL larger legislative bodies in the U.S.A.

About 10 percent minority rule in the U.S.A. Senate — due to many very small States.

About 45-55 percent rule in many at large bodies — cities, villages, townships — not all voters vote for all seat positions (but little if any minority representation).

Given the ongoing bipartisan economic crisis and BHO continuing W’s war policy in AfPak, there must be a lot of independents and weak D and R partisans who would be amenable to starting the process of breaking up the duopoly. It could be doable in a state with initiative and referendum.

For an example of how cumulative voting has worked in Amarillo, a community where the latino voting share is above the threshold, see:
http://www.fairvote.org/?page=240

half the votes in half the gerrymander districts = about 25 percent minority rule.

A *DEMOCRATIC* legislative body exists ONLY because ALL of the Electors-Voters can NOT generally appear in person and vote on legislation — thus AGENT- REPRESENTATIVES (aka legislators) are needed.

Such principle is much too difficult for the armies of MORON lawyers and judges to understand — especially the SCOTUS super-MORONS in their various gerrymander cases since 1964 — 45 years of MORONS.

This is party list (open or closed list) proportional representation. This isn’t bad, but typically it’s more suitable for larger legislatures rather than city council. Also, I think it has some hangups for independents since it treats them like a party when you vote. I can see party list proportional being a good option with one of two chambers in a legislature, but not as suitable for city council. Especially with a legislature so small, with other voting systems you get more personal identity with your representative.

(I’m also in law school to be one of those moronic lawyers. It’s okay though. I minored in math during undergrad.)

Both majority rule and minority representation.

Much too difficult for the armies of math morons (especially lawyers and judges) in the U.S.A.

Second, there are five seats on this council. That gives a threshold of 16.7% (100/6; same for limited with one vote and STV) of the vote needed to get someone elected. If the goal is to get a Hispanic on the board (assuming all Hispanics somehow vote the same) the vote turnout among Hispanics would have to be roughly proportional to other groups coming out to vote (assuming those groups don’t vote for Hispanics).

If they really want to make sure that they get a Hispanic on the board, they should add another seat. This would lower the threshold to 14.2% (100/7) and make it easier for this minority group to get elected. Of course a switch to single transferable vote would remove the problem of undervotes and overvotes, though City Attorney Mick McKamie and Mayor Dan Heckler might think this ranking of candidates as too “confusing” for voters.

The solution of plurality voting will only add to wasted votes, vote splitting, and never ending incumbency seats. While gerrymandering districts for a minority majority may accomplish the goal of getting a Hispanic elcted, it seems to come at an unnecessary cost when there are alternatives.