If one really wants a two-party system and doesn't want voters to
change that fact then one could ban third parties and accept only two.
That would solve the spoiler problem :-). From this point of view e.g.
the US system is not really intended to be a two-party system but just
a system
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:41 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
km-el...@broadpark.no wrote:
Raph Frank wrote:
If there are 5 seats and you have 20%+ of the votes, you are
guaranteed to get 1 seat under both d'Hondt and Droop.
There is a typo there, I meant 4 seats and 20%+ (I replied in a different
Kristofer Munsterhjelm Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 3:27 PM
Juho wrote:
If one really wants a two-party system and doesn't want voters to change
that fact then one could ban third parties and accept only two. That
would solve the spoiler problem :-).
Who is this one? Since that
James Gilmour wrote:
Kristofer Munsterhjelm Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 3:27 PM
Juho wrote:
If one really wants a two-party system and doesn't want voters to change
that fact then one could ban third parties and accept only two. That
would solve the spoiler problem :-).
Who is this
Raph Frank wrote:
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:41 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
km-el...@broadpark.no wrote:
Raph Frank wrote:
If there are 5 seats and you have 20%+ of the votes, you are
guaranteed to get 1 seat under both d'Hondt and Droop.
There is a typo there, I meant 4 seats and 20%+ (I
Kristofer Munsterhjelm Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 4:34 PM
James Gilmour wrote:
Why in any country that would merit the description democracy would
you want to impose a two-party system when the votes of the voters
showed that was not what they wanted?
That is my question, too.
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
km-el...@broadpark.no wrote:
The effect is that it is harder for parties to get their first seat.
Parties with 2 or more seats are no affected.
Is that true? Consider a maximally unfair variant, something like
2.999, 3, 5, 7, 9...
Now
The press release is
http://RangeVoting.org/Nov09PR.html
and tries to use the news hook (US elections) to create publicity
about voting methods.
Please send me (warren.wds AT gmail.com) any criticisms, and
please notify everybody you can think of in the press, of this.
thank you
--
Warren D.
thanx,
r b-j
On Oct 31, 2009, at 12:18 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On Oct 31, 2009, at 10:29 AM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
5. It always amazes me how irrationally the supporters of IRV/STV
support a nonmonotonic system that creates more problems than it
solves when there are clearly better
On Nov 3, 2009, at 5:27 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Juho wrote:
If one really wants a two-party system and doesn't want voters to
change that fact then one could ban third parties and accept only
two. That would solve the spoiler problem :-).
Who is this one? Since that one is at odds
I commented in another mail that any system where people can change
the system itself can be said to be a democracy. Even a two party
system that bans third parties may still fall within this definition.
Also multi-party systems have the same problem although in a milder
form. The
11 matches
Mail list logo
