[EM] The responsiveness of Condorcet

[Alex Small]

Adam Tarr said:
> Has ANYONE on this list said that they want single-member districts
> using  Condorcet voting?  I don't remember ever hearing that.  Some
> people have  expressed a desire to have single-winner districts in the
> past (to get a  closer link to the voters) but most offer a caveat of
> some mixed member  proportionality.

I, for one, have never argued that a legislature should be devoid of PR. 
I used to argue that some single-winner methods produce winners with
virtues that outweigh proportionality, so that a bicameral legislature
should have one house elected by PR and the other by single-member
districts (SMD).  I am now more skeptical of arguments that "this method
will almost always elect good people", so I no longer stand by those
arguments.

I guess my current position is a pramatic one:  Americans are used to SMD,
and bicameralism is something that most Americans believe in quite
strongly, so the best we can hope for is to elect one chamber of a
bicameral legislature by PR.  At the federal level this is certainly true,
since the Senate's composition is something we're stuck with no matter
what.

Let me be clear:  I'm not trying to disparage the importance of
proportionality, but rather trying to make the best of the situation we're
stuck in here in the US.  As long as at least some of our legislators are
elected from SMD, we should use the best single-winner method available
(as to what method that might be, well, that's the main question this list
discusses).



Alex