[EM] STV - the transferrable part is OK (fair), the sequential round elimination is not

[James Gilmour]

Raph Frank  > Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 9:41 PM
> >> To harp on California again: we have 53 Congressional districts, all (of
> >> course) single-seat FPTP. The distribution of Democratic and Republican
> >> seats is surprisingly close to representing state party registration.
> >
> > Yes, FPTP in single-seat districts is statistically proportional, but 
> > of course it very strongly favours large parties. This is thus 
> > proportional in some sense but doesn't fit well in my definition above 
> > since deviation from full proportionality (that would allow also 
> > smaller groups to survive) is much larger than what would be 
> > necessary.
> 
> That is a surprising election result.
> Did they intentionally gerrymander it to work that way?
> Normally, with impartial districting, the result isn't actually proportional.
> Normally, the larger party will get more seats than it is entitled to.

As I have written several times previously, the results of FPTP elections in the USA are the ones that are anomalous because the US
results are much more proportional and there are fewer "minority members" than for FPTP elections in most other countries that use
FPTP (e.g. UK, Canada).  Successful incumbent gerrymandering in the US is probably the main factor in producing these anomalous
results.  The holding primary elections may also be a contributing factor.


> If you have 60% of the votes, and your supporters are spread 
> randomly, then it is pretty sure than you will have, say 
> 55-65% of the votes in every district.

Not necessarily so.  In many countries there are clear urban-rural differences in support for different political parties.  In many
cities there are similar clear differences between poorer inner city areas and more prosperous suburbs. In these circumstances (e.g.
UK), FPTP produces "electoral deserts" where one party or another appears to have no support at all because it wins no seats.  But
the votes tell a different story.  These distortions of representation have dangerous political effects on government policy as the
.government party has little or no representation from one area or the other.


> This amplification like effect leads to more stable 
> governments (which is argued to be a good thing for 
> parliamentary systems).

Such governments are "stable" only in that they have a large overall majority as a result of the defective FPTP voting system.
There is no real stability because at the next election the distortion may go the other way.  Then you have reversal of policy and
no stability at all.  Look at the political history of the UK from 1945 for a prime example of such instability with severely
detrimental effects on the country in almost every branch of policy: economic, social, educational, health, etc, etc.

James Gilmour


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.698 / Virus Database: 270.14.44/2475 - Release Date: 11/01/09 19:39:00