Hi David,
De : David L Wetzell <[email protected]>
>>À : EM <[email protected]>
>>Envoyé le : Lundi 13 février 2012 20h41
>>Objet : [EM] i don't get why mixed member rules use FPTP???
>>
>>
>>
>>It seems like the awesomeness of using PR for part of the seats somehow makes
>>up for the lousiness of FPTP for the rest of the seats.
>>
>>
>>But why not use IRV+ for the rest? I mean it's not unlike FPTP in how it
>>tends to favor bigger parties. According toGeorge Eaton, it
>>still lets there popular parties get a disproportionately large portion of
>>the seats, but only when they're truly popular.
>>
>>
>>So why couldn't Germany replace FPTP for its single-member seats with IRV?
>>
>>
>>I got on this rant because I learned of the DPR approach to foster
>>multi-party system in the UK.
>>
>>
>>I don't see any reason why 4-seat super districts that use 3-seat LR Hare and
>>IRV+ wouldn't suffice?
>>Maybe the use of PR might get more folks excited about the electoral reform
>>this time...
>>dlw
>>
>
I don't think there is much to be gained from doing that in Germany. My
understanding is that in practice voters
vote the single-winner ballot according to party, and then the PR part
basically overrules anomalies as well. What
I mean is, suppose you used Condorcet and some minor party won a ton of
single-winner races. Despite this, the
PR would adjust it so that the relative winnings are proportional to the party
list vote. So the unexpected results
on the single-winner ballot result in almost nothing.
I think this would probably still be a problem in a setting with weak party
discipline...
Kevin
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
