[EM] Plurality == FPTP right?

[Richard Lung]

Jack, I think that your argument FPTP does not exist in the US because 
of primaries is a sleight of hand, so to speak.

FPTP is still FPTP. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... 
You could equally argue that FPTP does not exist in the UK because, as I 
have known locally in the past and no doubt present, a 20-person local 
party committee or caucus steers the selection process. That is a 
"primary" of sorts.

The contention has interest as an illustration of how far academics will 
go to apologise for FPTP. Why extenuate such an indefensible system? 
FPTP is not complicated, it is simply incomplete. FPTP is not an 
election, it is only the first stage of an election. It would be nice to 
hear that loud and clear from academics, and, conceivably, political 
beneficiaries.

Regards,

Richard Lung,



On 06/05/2024 20:39, Jack Santucci wrote:
> Political scientist here. Please don't pelt me with rotten fruit.
>
> We generally use three categories to differentiate electoral systems. 
> The number of categories depends on who's writing, but everyone pretty 
> much agrees on three: district magnitude (1 in your case), ballot type 
> (categorical in your case), and then allocation rule (plurality in 
> your case).
>
> Shugart, Latner, and I arguedhere 
> <https://protectdemocracy.org/work/toward-a-different-kind-of-party-government/>that 
> 'FPFP' did not really exist in the US due to the widespread use of 
> primaries, some of which have been replaced with nonpartisan winnowing 
> rounds (AK, CA, etc). FWIW, Burnett and Kogan (2015) noted 
> <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2519723> this 
> elision in their conclusion nearly a decade ago.
>
> Other examples of plurality allocation with categorical ballots /and 
> multi-seat districts/:
> - multiple non-transferable vote (incl. as limited voting)
> - single non-transferable vote (incl. as limited voting)
> - cumulative voting
> - etc...
>
> I generally stay quiet, but this issue is fundamental enough, I think, 
> to merit the above contribution. FPTP often comes across as an 
> imaginary target.
>
> A purist might insist on calling IRV 'plurality' as well, so long as 
> it does not require the voter to rank all choices.
>
> Jack
>
>
> On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 3:10 PM Closed Limelike Curves 
> <closed.limelike.curves at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     I just need to double-check I haven't gone completely insane and
>     both of these terms really are synonyms. Comments on the talk page
>     would be helpful:
>     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Plurality_voting#Merge_from_FPTP
>     ----
>     Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for
>     list info
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - seehttps://electorama.com/em  for list info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240507/2d5fbe10/attachment.htm>