[EM] STV - the transferrable part is OK (fair), the sequential round elimination is not
Kristofer Munsterhjelm
km-elmet at broadpark.no
Tue Nov 3 08:34:27 PST 2009
James Gilmour wrote:
> Kristofer Munsterhjelm > Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2009 3:27 PM
>>> Juho 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 :-).
>> Who is this "one"? Since that one is at odds with the voters,
>> that's not very democratic, is it?
>>
>> I guess that one "democratic" way of doing it would be to have the
>> question itself posed to the voters, but with a suitable low-pass filter
>> (e.g. supermajority required to change it, or a majority over a long
>> time); though then I think it'd be better just to have the
>> filter on the decision process itself.
>
> Why in any country that would merit the description "democracy" would
> you want to impose a "two-party system" when the votes of the
> voters showed that was not what they wanted?
That is my question, too. The only way I see that there might be a
conflict is with long term versus short term, hence the
filtering/supermajority idea; but then I considered, since more parties
provide a greater variety of opinions, then if short-term populism is a
problem, it'd be better to put the supermajority/consensus requirements
into the decision process rather than on the question of how many
parties one should have.
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list