> > > I agree that PR would have single-party majorities > > less often than > > > FPTP, but not to the extent > > > that would make me comfortable. I'm thinking > > especially of closed-list > > > PR, but my suspicion is > > > that party strength would not be much reduced by > > STV if the system is > > > parliamentary. I would be > > > very interested to see the results of STV where > > the chamber does not > > > choose the executive. > > > > Examples would be the Senate of the Republic of > > Ireland and the Senate of the > > Australian Federal Parliament. But neither of these > > is the 'principal' chamber of > > those Parliaments. > > > What is a "principle" chamber? The Australian upper > and lower houses have equal powers. > The lower house is entirely composed of single member > electorates. The upper house is mostly elected with > six seats per state per election. > The lower house serves to rubber stamp government > legislation. The upper house alone exercises real > debate, with real votes, bills defeated, amendments > passed. > > It is not correct to say that party strength is > reduced in the upper house, except that there is no > single party capable of dictating to the house.
Thanks for this correction and clarification. From your description it is clear that the Australian model is better than most. James ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
