[EM] i don't get why mixed member rules use FPTP???

[Kevin Venzke]

Hi David,


De : David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
>>À : EM <election-methods at lists.electorama.com> 
>>Envoyé le : Lundi 13 février 2012 20h41
>>Objet : [EM] i don't get why mixed member rules use FPTP???
>>
>>
>>
>>It seems like the awesomeness of using PR for part of the seats somehow makes up for the lousiness of FPTP for the rest of the seats. 
>>
>>
>>But why not use IRV+ for the rest?  I mean it's not unlike FPTP in how it tends to favor bigger parties.  According toGeorge Eaton, it
>>still lets there popular parties get a disproportionately large portion of the seats, but only when they're truly popular.
>>
>>
>>So why couldn't Germany replace FPTP for its single-member seats with IRV?
>>
>>
>>I got on this rant because I learned of the DPR approach to foster multi-party system in the UK.
>>
>>
>>I don't see any reason why 4-seat super districts that use 3-seat LR Hare and IRV+ wouldn't suffice?
>>Maybe the use of PR might get more folks excited about the electoral reform this time...
>>dlw
>>
>
I don't think there is much to be gained from doing that in Germany. My understanding is that in practice voters
vote the single-winner ballot according to party, and then the PR part basically overrules anomalies as well. What
I mean is, suppose you used Condorcet and some minor party won a ton of single-winner races. Despite this, the
PR would adjust it so that the relative winnings are proportional to the party list vote. So the unexpected results
on the single-winner ballot result in almost nothing.

I think this would probably still be a problem in a setting with weak party discipline...

Kevin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120214/7cefadfa/attachment-0004.htm>