[EM] My summary of the recent discussion

[James Gilmour]

> >>> what is the scenario with two parties where FPTP is so flawed?

> >> Only if you think that 
> >> third parties and independents should nor run, and there 
> >> should be only two parties, then Plurality is fine.

> > On 4.6.2012, at 13.49, James Gilmour wrote: 
> > These contributions to this discussion take an extremely narrow view 
> > of representation of voters as it is clear this discussion is not 
> > about a single-winner election (state governor, city mayor) but about 
> > electing representative assemblies like state legislatures and city 
> > councils.  There can be major problems of representation if such 
> > representative assemblies are elected by FPTP from single-member 
> > districts even when there are only two parties.
> > 
> > Even when the electorates of the single-member districts are as near 
> > equal as possible and even when the turnouts are near equal, FPTP in 
> > single-member districts can deliver highly unrepresentative results if 
> > the support for the two parties is concentrated in particular 
> > districts -  as it is in most electorates.  Thus party A that wins 51 
> > of the 100 seats in the assembly may win those seats by small margins 
> > (say 550 votes to 450 votes) but party B that looses the election with 
> > 49 of the 100 seats may have won its seats by overwhelming margins 
> > (say 700 votes to 300 votes).  Thus the 51 A to 49 B result is highly 
> > unrepresentative of those who actually voted: 42,750 for party A but 
> > 57,250 for party B.
> > 
> > These numbers are deliberately exaggerated to show the point, but here 
> > in the UK we see this effect in every UK General Election since 1945, 
> > where the "win small, loose big" effect of FPTP has consistently 
> > benefited the Labour Party at the expense of the Conservative Party.
> > 
> > And where such vote concentration exists  -  at is does everywhere  -  
> > the result can be greatly influenced by where the boundaries of the 
> > single-member districts are drawn.  "Move the boundary, change the 
> > result".
> > 
> > These are fundamental defects of FPTP in single-member districts that 
> > must be addressed if you want your elected assemblies to be properly 
> > representative of those who vote.
> > 
> > Both of these defects has greater effect if the electorates are not so 
> > equal or if the turnouts vary with party support (as they certainly do 
> > in the UK).
> > 
> > So even when there are only two parties, FPTP is very far from "fine".


> Juho   Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 4:06 PM> 
> Yes, that makes sense. FPTP in single-member districts is not 
> fair in the sense that it gives only approximate results (due 
> to the inaccuracy of counting the seats in single-member 
> districts) and is vulnerable to gerrymandering.

It is not a question of "not fair" (which can be a highly subjective assessment), it is simply that the result is not properly
representative.  And the distortion is not due to "inaccuracy"  -  the defect is inherent in the system as it is based on
single-member districts.  And it is a defect, given the purpose of the election  -  to elect a representative assembly..

Such a system is vulnerable to gerrymandering, i.e. to the DELIBERATE manipulation of the district boundaries.  But the real point
is that these boundary effects occur even when there is no gerrymandering, i.e. no deliberate manipulation.


> A system that counts the proportions at national level 
> (typically a multi-party system) would be more accurate. Also 
> gerrymandering can be avoided this way.

Yes, the votes could be summed at national level and the seats allocated at national level.  But you do not need to go to national
level to achieve proper representation.  Where the electors also want some guarantee of local representation, a satisfactory
compromise can be achieved with a much more modest 'district magnitude' than one national district.


> The discussed proposal of changing the Plurality/FPTP method 
> of the single-member districts to some other single-winner 
> method has still many of the discussed problems (inaccuracy, 
> gerrymandering). One could try to construct also two-party 
> systems or single-member district based systems that would 
> avoid those problems. But maybe proportional representation 
> is a more likely "ideal end result". Practical reforms may 
> however start with whatever achievable steps.

All single-member district voting systems will have similar defects.  But remember my comments were made in direct response to the
statements quoted at the top:  (more or less) "If there are only two parties, FPTP is fine".    I think the problem with what may be
regarded "achievable steps" is that many contributors to this list start in the wrong place.  "Elections are for electors"  - so
where the objective is to elect a 'representative assembly' (state legislature, city council), the first requirement should be that
the voting system delivers an assembly that it is properly representative  -  all else is secondary.

James







-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2178 / Virus Database: 2425/5044 - Release Date: 06/04/12