Hi David,
De : David L Wetzell wetze...@gmail.com
À : EM election-methods@lists.electorama.com
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
