[EM] Why We Shouldn't Count Votes with Machines

[James Gilmour]

Dave Ketchum > Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 7:37 PM
> 
> Plurality does fine with two candidates, or with one obvious 
> winner over others.

I am horrified to read this statement on this list.  It is completely and utterly untrue.  Plurality fails on almost every count
even when there are only two candidates in each electoral district and even when only two parties contest the elections.

Granted, if there are only two candidates within each district the plurality winner must have a majority of the votes within the
district.  But there the "satisfactory" performance of plurality ends.  Almost half the voters can be left without representation  -
and that happens in large numbers of districts, even when not in all.  Plurality distorts the voters' wishes and exaggerates swings
in party support, even when there are only two parties.  Just look at these results from two successive general elections in
Jamaica:	

	1976	1976	1980	19080
	%votes	seats	%votes	seats	
PNP	57	47	43	9	
JLP	43	13	57	51

Even if the electoral districts have nearly equal electorates, differential turnout can mean that plurality puts the "wrong" party
in power.

No, plurality is a rotten voting system and it is a pernicious myth that it works OK when there are only two parties or only two
contesting candidates in each electoral district.  We British who spread this appalling voting system around the world owe the
electors of many countries an almighty apology for this dreadful legacy!!

James
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.173 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1706 - Release Date: 03/10/2008 18:17