[EM] (no subject)

[Anthony O'Neal]

I don't necessarily think that STV is better than an open party list 
system.  But I'm a political realist, and I think that STV is the system 
that would be easiest to implement in America.  With our loose coalition 
Democrat and Republican parties, and our large base of independents, 
people are too used to voting for the person and not the party to widely 
accept a system that forces voting for a party.  Even if they do have a 
large say in said party.  STV is proportional if people vote by party.  
It is also proportional if people vote by eye color. 

It's main problem is that it's complicated as hell to explain, and the 
opposition at the BC-STV referendum exploited this mercilessly. 

So the only real solution for proportional advocates seems to be to 
either find a billionaire willing to support the cause of STV, or to 
wait 100 years until Americas increasing polarization makes partisan 
voting seems not seem so obscene.

Raph Frank wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Kathy Dopp <kathy.dopp at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Rather than reply individually to the three response to my former
>> post, I'll just make some observations:
>>
>> 1. It seems like the pro-IRV/STV group has begun to dominate this list,
>>     
>
> I am pro-PR-STV but against IRV.
>
> As with all election methods, it is a trade-off.  The benefits of
> PR-STV outweigh the disadvantages.  It gives max control to the voters
> while giving reasonable PR.  The more seats elected the better.  With
> small constituencies, it isn't so great.
>
> I guess my thoughts would be that PR is better than a single seat
> method, and PR-STV is better than a party list system.
>