[EM] Approval Strategy A- Question for Rob LeGrand
jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk
Sun Nov 23 01:35:01 PST 2003
Gervase wrote (in parts):
> Some people argue that (Plurality) PR can cause too much
What is "Plurality PR"? I thought Plurality could give acceptable PR only by chance. Certainly the
results of UK Plurality (single-seat and multi-seat) elections at all levels of government show the
failure of Plurality to deliver PR.
> This can be detrimental when the elected chamber try to vote on
> things. This is the reason why Italy went from proportional to a single
> seats election.
You need to be more specific than just "proportional". Italy used a Party List system of PR, which
can have a tendency to encourage party splitting. However, Italy also had many parties before 1919
when it used a majoritarian voting system, so it is doubtful whether the voting system used was a
relevant factor in that case.
With STV-PR (Choice Voting) we can see examples where the system gave representation to diversity
and that diversity has been maintained, eg Northern Ireland, and examples where diversity has
reduced from a multi-party parliament to a two-party parliament, eg Malta.
> So, there could still be room for Approval and Condorcet.
> Nevertheless, I
> did (and still do?) agree with you that if you want PR, why
> not just stick
> with Plurality. Plurality is simple, which is a bonus.
Plurality may be simple, but it has little to do with anything I would recognise as "PR".
> Immediately below that would be Borda as it is the "next
> step" down from
> Cardinal Ratings. Borda would be followed by Approval then Condorcet.
I am surprised that Borda should receive any serious consideration at all. The defects of this
voting system are well known, so why would anyone want to use it?
> Meanwhile, Plurality is only proportional
> with respect to the top most voted candidate.
What does this statement mean? How has "proportional" being interpreted here?
More information about the Election-Methods