> On 31.10.2011, at 18.20, David L Wetzell wrote: > > This is not about getting third party candidates elected, it's about > > making our polity tend towards a contested (and far more dynamic) > > political duopoly, rather than a (somewhat contested) political > > monopoly.
Juho Laatu > Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 6:15 PM > I'm not sure what your targets for the national level are. > This sentence however sounds like 1) representatives of minor > third party should not be elected, 2) the strongest party > should win in each single-winner district, 3) the target is a > political duopoly (in each district), 4) the political > duopoly should just be more dynamic than today, which could > mean that new parties may replace the current major parties > when the small parties grow stronger than the old parties. > These requirements reflect what I tried to achieve a while > ago. I'm just wondering if that is also what you want. If that is what you really want, Juho, it is one of the most depressing prescriptions I have read on this list. Instead of this single-winner district approach, what is really needed is a voting system that will make the elected body properly representative of those who vote. And you will not get that (other than by chance) with any voting system based only on single-member districts, no matter how dynamic the duopoly within each district. For "representative democracy" to have any real meaning, the elected body must be representative - and by that we mean *properly* representative in relation to the votes. James Gilmour ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
