[EM] My summary of the recent discussion

[Juho Laatu]

On 4.6.2012, at 6.38, robert bristow-johnson wrote:

> 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?

I think you already said it. If you want a system that allows also third parties and independents take part in the election, then Plurality is flawed. Only if you think that third parties and independents should nor run, and there should be only two parties, then Plurality is fine.

Juho


> 
> just curious.
> 
> (i still reading what you guys have written.)
> 
> -- 
> 
> r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com
> 
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
> 
> 
> 
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info