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

[Juho]

On Nov 3, 2009, at 3:47 PM, Raph Frank wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Juho <juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> If one really wants a two-party system and doesn't want voters to  
>> change
>> that fact then one could ban third parties and accept only two.  
>> That would
>> solve the spoiler problem :-).
>
> What about a 2 stage process.  Ask voters to vote "What party is your
> favourite party?".
>
> Only the top-2 parties are then allowed to run candidates for the  
> main election.

Yes, that works in the sense that it would make it easier to change  
the leading parties. Looks like a special version of Top Two Runoff.

>
> You could use Asset voting to decide on the 2 parties if they don't
> manage to more than 1/3 of the vote each.
>
> Each "party" might end up being a coalition of parties.

The two parties of a two-party system can be seen to be coalitions of  
"left" and "right" wing people. I think organizations have a general  
tendency to become centrally coordinated (that is in the interest of  
the leaders and people working for the organization) and therefore  
time might unify the parties of the coalition and collect them under  
one umbrella.

Juho


>
>> In principle each district could have its own two
>> parties that are independent of what the two parties are in other  
>> districts.
>> There is however some tendency to end up with two or small number  
>> of parties
>> nation wide.
>
> This is seen in Canada with the Quebec party.
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for  
> list info