I think Plurality can be claimed to be the ideal method for the
single-member districts of a two-party system, but then one should
maybe also think that third parties should not be allowed to run, and
we should stick to the same two parties forever.
I don't get it.
of course,
On 4.6.2012, at 13.49, James Gilmour wrote:
I think Plurality can be claimed to be the ideal method for the
single-member districts of a two-party system, but then one should
maybe also think that third parties should not be allowed to run, and
we should stick to the same two parties
what is the scenario with two parties where FPTP is so flawed?
Only if you think that
third parties and independents should nor run, and there
should be only two parties, then Plurality is fine.
On 4.6.2012, at 13.49, James Gilmour wrote:
These contributions to this discussion
On 4.6.2012, at 19.18, James Gilmour wrote:
A system that counts the proportions at national level
(typically a multi-party system) would be more accurate. Also
gerrymandering can be avoided this way.
Yes, the votes could be summed at national level and the seats allocated at
national
I say again, the academic argument does not meet the real-world. My vote is
not going to be influenced by these arguments, and since I'm the only voter
in my district likely to read them, they are not likely to match real-world
voter experience.
NOBODY's expectation is really a sum over anything.
On 5.6.2012, at 1.52, James Gilmour wrote:
On 4.6.2012, at 19.18, James Gilmour wrote:
A system that counts the proportions at national level
(typically a multi-party system) would be more accurate. Also
gerrymandering can be avoided this way.
Yes, the votes could be summed at national
About gerrymanmdering;
PR would be a solution to gerrymandering, but certainly not the only one:
1. Proxy Direct Democracy wouldn't have a gerrymandering problem either. If
Proxy DD can be made count-fraud-secure, then it would make PR obsolete.
2. Whatever can be accomplished by PR can be
