[EM] Classifying 3-cand scenarios. LNHarm methods again.

[James Gilmour]

robert bristow-johnson  > Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 4:03 AM
> I dunno about France, but is that the case in Italy?  or Israel?  I  
> thought there were a bunch of countries with a half dozen contending  
> parties or more.  it looks to me that even the UK has three  
> significant parties.

It seems to me that in mentioning these particular countries you are mixing up two aspects of voting system reform that should
always be kept completely separate, namely choosing a single-winner voting system for single-OFFICE elections and choosing a system
for the election of representatives to representative assemblies.  Single-winner voting systems should never be used to elect the
members of a representative assembly because, except by chance, single-winner voting systems cannot deliver the primary requirement
-  an assembly properly representative of those who voted.

The reference to France could be to the Presidential election  -  that is a single-winner election by popular vote, but it uses
Top-Two Run-Off with occasional disastrous consequences.  The members of the French National Assembly are elected from single-seat
electoral districts, also with two-round run-off, and so that Assembly is not properly representative of those who vote.

In Italy the national Parliament was from 1945 to 1993 elected by closed-list party-list national PR, with two very low thresholds.
Italy then flirted with MMP but went back to party-list PR in 2005 but with a 55% seat distortion to favour the coalition with most
votes.  Israel uses closed-list party-list national PR with a very low national vote (artificial) threshold.  Both countries have
highly fragmented party systems  -  perhaps a consequence of using closed-list versions of party-list PR voting systems.

So far as the UK is concerned, it depends how you define "significant".  >From the all-time high of 97%, the vote for the two largest
parties has declined since 1951, down to 68% in 2005.  See:	
  http://www.jamesgilmour.org.uk/Percentage-Votes-for-Two-Largest-Parties-UK-GEs-1945-2005.pdf

But even when most votes were cast for the two largest parties, FPTP failed as a voting system because, with rare exceptions, it did
not deliver a properly representative House of Commons but manufactured gross majorities for one party or the other despite NO party
ever winning 50% of the votes.  And on two critical occasions (1951 and Feb 1974) FPTP elected the "wrong" party to government  -
the sitting government won the vote but lost the election.

In Scotland and Wales there are four significant parties, even for UK elections.  At least there are in terms of votes  -  but not
in terms of seats, thanks to FPTP in single-member electoral districts.

James Gilmour

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com 
Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2819 - Release Date: 04/18/10 19:31:00