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
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
2012/6/2 Juho Laatu juho4...@yahoo.co.uk
On 2.6.2012, at 18.19, Jameson Quinn wrote:
2) Approval method and its strategies were once more discussed. My
understanding is simply that Approval works quite fine as long as there are
only one or two winnable candidates, but when there are three
On 3.6.2012, at 22.52, Jameson Quinn wrote:
2012/6/2 Juho Laatu juho4...@yahoo.co.uk
On 2.6.2012, at 18.19, Jameson Quinn wrote:
2) Approval method and its strategies were once more discussed. My
understanding is simply that Approval works quite fine as long as there are
only one or
P.S. In Soda the Approval related problems with more than three potential
winners might be easier to handle than in Approval. In Soda we may have all
information of the voter approvals and the candidate preferences available, and
this may lead to negotiations and consensus decision on how the
On 6/3/12 5:08 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
On 3.6.2012, at 22.52, Jameson Quinn wrote:
2012/6/2 Juho Laatu juho4...@yahoo.co.uk mailto:juho4...@yahoo.co.uk
...
One difference is that Approval is a compromise oriented method
while Plurality aims at electing from (and forming) large
2012/6/3 robert bristow-johnson r...@audioimagination.com
On 6/3/12 5:08 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
On 3.6.2012, at 22.52, Jameson Quinn wrote:
2012/6/2 Juho Laatu juho4...@yahoo.co.uk mailto:juho4...@yahoo.co.uk
...
One difference is that Approval is a compromise oriented method
2) Approval method and its strategies were once more discussed. My
understanding is simply that Approval works quite fine as long as there are
only one or two winnable candidates, but when there are three or more, the
method pretty much fails
Fails compared to what? At its worst, approval
On 2.6.2012, at 18.19, Jameson Quinn wrote:
2) Approval method and its strategies were once more discussed. My
understanding is simply that Approval works quite fine as long as there are
only one or two winnable candidates, but when there are three or more, the
method pretty much fails
12 matches
Mail list logo
