robert bristow-johnson > Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 6:29 PM > BTW, Juho, I heard a BBC news story about your election tomorrow > regarding the desirability of FPTP vs. proportional methods in > electing Parliament. so it sounds like that the UK, with its new Lib- > Dem party, is also being confronted by the same problems. I don't > quite get it, though. aren't MPs elected out of geographic > districts? are there more than one MP elected in any given district? > if it's only one MP per district, how can a proportional method be > used? how can the losing votes in one district be transferred to > another district to help elect someone there? you would *have* to > have more than one candidate elected per district with all candidates > running at large, no? if it's one MP per district, it's a single- > winner election (and then, of course, I would advocate for > Condorcet, in a 3+ party context).
This wasn't addressed to me, but as a UK voter and UK campaigner for voting reform for more than 45 years, I may be qualified to comment. The problem with the FPTP voting system in the UK it not new - it has been apparent since at least 1900. And there have been several attempts to reform it, with some very near misses along the way. MANY of us hope this 2010 general election will the last FPTP election for the UK Parliament at Westminster. (We use six different voting systems for public elections in the UK. Of these, three are PR voting systems.) The Liberal Democrat Party is not new. This party (or its immediate predecessors) has received significant support for many years. The UK has a multi-party Parliament, although the defective FPTP voting system has ensured that the voters wishes were so distorted that only two parties have been able to form governments, and nearly always with a substantial majority over all parties though no party has won even half of the votes in any general election since 1945. At present all 650 MPs are elected from single-member districts (here called constituencies). It is impossible to have a PR voting system that is based only on any voting system exclusively within singe-member districts. The main thrust for reform is for STV-PR with sensibly sized multi-member electoral districts. For example, Edinburgh presently elects 5 MPs from 5 single-member constituencies. The City of Edinburgh should be ONE 5-member STV-PR electoral district. Similarly, the City of Glasgow should be a 7-member electoral district. In rural areas the district magnitude could be less, with even one or two single-member districts reflecting remoteness and long-standing political "realities". The outgoing government (Labour Party) offered a referendum on the Alternative Vote (= IRV) if it were re-elected, but this is a cynical political ploy as the Alternative Vote would be "electoral reform" that would not deliver PR and would tend to favour the Labour Party - at least, it would have done on the basis of polling returns before the election campaign started. There have been some significant changes in voting intention during the election campaign and AV (= IRV) could perhaps work very badly against the Labour Party. Serious reformers are opposed to the AV nonsense! The numbers of candidates standing in the present FPTP single-member districts varies widely; I think 14 may be the maximum this time. In the five Edinburgh single-member constituencies (where I live) the numbers of candidates are: 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9. But if Edinburgh were one 5-member electoral district for STV-PR, the total number of candidates would likely be less that the present total of 31 because none of the four main parties would nominate 5 candidates. We already use STV-PR for public elections within the UK and it works very well. STV-PR should adopted for the UK Parliament as well. James Gilmour No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.814 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2854 - Release Date: 05/04/10 19:27:00 ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
