[EM] Populism and Voting Theory

[Raph Frank]

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 3:29 PM, James Gilmour <jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
> Raph Frank  > Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 2:45 PM
>> Anyway, you would rank PR-STV behind single winner election methods?
>
> This is an illogical question.  By definition, "single winner elections methods" are for electing single winners.  By definition
> "PR-STV" is for obtaining proportionality of the voters for which several winners must be elected together.  So you are not
> comparing like with like.

Fair enough, I meant would you elect a legislature via single winner or PR.

> Single winner voting systems should, of course, be used only for single-office elections, like city mayor or state governor.  Single
> winner voting methods should never be used to elect assemblies, like a city council or a state legislature.

Ok, then we are in agreement.

Actually, I would see the reviewing House of the legislature as less
important in this regard, but the primary/government linked House
should be PR based.

> There is, of course, a separate debate about the nature of assemblies elected by PR voting systems (of different kinds) and those
> elected by single-winner voting systems.  But that is essentially a political debate about how representative or how distorted you
> want the assembly to be, and about some of the other effects of some single-winner voting systems, such as the tendency of some
> single-winner voting systems to manufacturing single-party majorities within the assembly even when no such majority exists among
> the voters.  Some see such distortion of the voters' wishes as highly undesirable, while others see that distortion as highly
> desirable, indeed, as an essential feature of the political system for "good and effective government".

True, some see the solid majorities given by plurality as one of its
main benefits.