[EM] My summary of the recent discussion

[Jameson Quinn]

2012/6/3 robert bristow-johnson <rbj at audioimagination.com>

> On 6/3/12 5:08 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
>
>> On 3.6.2012, at 22.52, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>>
>>  2012/6/2 Juho Laatu <juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk <mailto:juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>     One difference is that Approval is a compromise oriented method
>>>    while Plurality aims at electing from (and forming) large
>>>    parties. If our target is to establish a two-party system,
>>>    Plurality is our natural choice.
>>>
>>>
>>> I strongly disagree. Even for a two-party system, plurality's flaws are
>>> worse than its advantages. Even if two-party is your goal (and I'd argue
>>> that's a bad goal, you can get the same actual beneficial ends without two
>>> parties if you need to), IRV and/or official party primaries are the way to
>>> get it.
>>>
>>
>> Problems of Plurality:
>> - votes to third parties are pretty much lost votes
>> - voting becomes very problematic when there are more than two potential
>> winners
>>
>> Problems of Approval:
>> - voters must find their best strategic vote (in competitive elections)
>> - voting becomes very problematic when there are more than two potential
>> winners
>>
>> Differences
>> - Plurality elects from large parties
>> - Approval elects compromise candidates (strategies may lead to something
>> else too)
>>
>> Based on this ultra-quick analysis, all depends on what the targets are.
>>
>> I think Plurality can be claimed to be the ideal method for the
>> single-member districts of a two-party system, but then one should maybe
>> also think that third parties should not be allowed to run, and we should
>> stick to the same two parties forever.
>>
>
> i don't get it.
>
> of course, if there are only two candidates, there is no problem with
> Plurality (because it's also a Majority).
>
> so how is Plurality so flawed if we accept that a two-party system is fine
> and dandy?  if not Third parties, for Independents?
>
> what is the scenario with two parties where FPTP is so flawed?
>

Small candidates spoiling the election. Yes, that can't happen with 2.0000
parties, but it can happen with 2.01.

And my larger point is that approval is strictly better than plurality.
Even if you think 2 parties is just great (which as I've said before, is
not a point I'm conceding; duopoly is bad and I can prove it), saying that
therefore plurality is good is like saying that kids smarting off is bad so
beating them regularly is good. Plurality maintains 2 parties with all
stick, no carrot, and the bruises from that stick are a bigger negative
than the biggest positive benefits anyone even claims plurality has.

Jameson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120603/067e010d/attachment-0004.htm>