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

[Juho]

Some examples of distribution of seats between political parties (I  
believe these are all proportional or close to proportional).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Belgium#Chamber_of_Representatives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Denmark#Last_election_results
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Estonia#Latest_election
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Finland#Election_results_2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Latvia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Representatives_of_the_Netherlands#Current_situation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Norway#Party_groups
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Sweden#Politics

Juho



On Apr 19, 2010, at 2:28 PM, James Gilmour wrote:

> 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
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for  
> list info