Dave Ketchum wrote:
> We have to be doing different topics.
I'm afraid that Dave and James Gilmour are indeed "doing different
topics". I gather that, for Dave, it is taken for granted that elections
are held to fill a single seat (or executive branch office). The choice
between winner-take-all in single-member districts and PR just isn't
part of this discussion. I'm afraid that's true of an awful lot of
discussions held within the framework of social choice theory.
For James, I suspect that the choice between winner-take-all and PR is
fundamental. It's definitely fundamental for me.
--
Bob Richard
Marin Ranked Voting
P.O. Box 235
Kentfield, CA 94914-0235
415-256-9393
http://www.marinrankedvoting.org
Dave Ketchum wrote:
On Sat, 4 Oct 2008 23:59:51 +0100 James Gilmour wrote:
Dave Ketchum > Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 7:37 PM
Plurality does fine with two candidates, or with one obvious winner
over others.
I am horrified to read this statement on this list. It is completely
and utterly untrue. Plurality fails on almost every count
even when there are only two candidates in each electoral district
and even when only two parties contest the elections.
We have to be doing different topics.
PROVIDED there are only two candidates, all there is to do is pick one
- and many methods can manage this with about equal effort.
I promote Condorcet BECAUSE I like what it does with more candidates.
Other methods have value in their environments.
....
No, plurality is a rotten voting system and it is a pernicious myth
that it works OK when there are only two parties or only two
contesting candidates in each electoral district. We British who
spread this appalling voting system around the world owe the
electors of many countries an almighty apology for this dreadful
legacy!!
James
--
Bob Richard
Marin Ranked Voting
P.O. Box 235
Kentfield, CA 94914-0235
415-256-9393
http://www.marinrankedvoting.org
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
