> I know it contradicts a core assumption of many > members of this group, but plurality winners aren't > always so terrible.
That's true, but it's missing the point. Sure, it's always possible for a country to "get lucky" -- even some dictatorships have been benevolent and provided good leadership. The real question isn't whether the system ever elects anyone decent, but rather how good it is at representing the will of the electorate. By that measure, plurality elections do very poorly -- any time more than two candidates are running in an election, the election's results get distorted by spoiler effects that are artifacts of the system and don't represent the will of the voters. -Jeremy ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
