> > On 27.5.2011, at 10.01, Jameson Quinn wrote: > > 1. We draw up a statement which details the serious problems > > with plurality in the US context, and states that there are > > solutions.
> Juho Laatu Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 9:43 PM > Good approach. I have one comment on the target statement. > Expression "problems with plurality in the US context" > contains the assumption that the traditional two-party system > in not the correct solution for the US. I would respectfully suggest that this statement is not correct. I don't think JQ's statement says or implies anything about "the traditional two-party system". But even if the electors and voters in the USA wanted and voted only for "the traditional two-party system", there could be, and probably would be, problems with plurality, even in the US context. Plurality frequently distorts the voters' wishes, is inherently unstable, and even when it delivers acceptably balanced representation overall there are often "electoral deserts" where one party or the other has almost no representation despite having significant voting support there, even when there are only two parties. And I think you need to distinguish between the two types of election that occur in the US context: election to a single-office (city mayor, state governor, etc); and election to a "representative assembly" (city council, state legislature with upper and lower houses, federal legislature with upper and lower houses). These two types of election present different opportunities for securing representation of the voters within a system of "representative democracy". These are more fundamental issues that I would suggest you need to address, and they are quite independent of any consideration of the number of parties (or the number of effective parties) that might come later. JG ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
