<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
First there is, at least, one way to combine pure PR and Condorcet,
<br>as I explained in SPPA's description...
<p>Second, you are right to say that Condorcet as a single-seat method
would
<br>result into attracting parties toward the center. However, you
should not
<br>stop your analysis there and concude to a monopoly. The center
definition
<br>is something that evolves depending on every voter prerogative.
Maybe
<br>in the future all voters will not use the same issue as a dominant
<br>filter to vote. If priorities vary from persons to persons so
does the
<br>"center" definition (and I do not mean it about positions but about
<br>debates ordering). So more parties would rise and the existing ones
<br>would adapt, I believe the left-right specter we always use would
<br>explode in a multi-dimensional comparison matrice, our political big
bang if you like...
<p>SPPA tries to maximize representation along different axes by sampling
<br>the electorate.
<p>Stephane
<p>Dgamble997@aol.com a écrit :
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>James Green-Armytage make two postings
in support of Condorcet. The subject of the second posting ( centre dominance
) is the principle reason I consider it a flawed method. I realise that
I've probably made every criticism that can be made of it in the course
of the last month but my principle objection to it is that it has great
potential to produce some very bad results in practice in certain real
life situations.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>When I first read about Condorcet one
of the first things that I did was apply it to the party system of my own
country ( Britain). I then fairly swiftly rejected it as a method because
it seemed extremely probable that if applied in single member seats
it would give very bad results.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>My first criterion for good results
for an electoral system is that it allocates seats to parties in proportion
to their vote.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>In England there are three main political
parties, two large ones - the Conservatives on the right and Labour on
the left and a smaller third party - the Liberal Democrats
generally perceived by voters as being in the centre. The Liberal Democrats
are by no means a turkey party just a smaller party perceived by voters
as being in the centre.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>In Scotland and Wales their are additionally
the Scottish National Party- a broadly left wing party that wants an independent
Scotland and Plaid Cymru ( Welsh for the party of Wales) which wants more
power devolved to Wales and strongly supports the Welsh language and culture.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Additionally in proportional elections
for the European parliament, Scottish, Welsh and London assemblies
the Greens, Scottish Socialist party and UK Independence party have all
obtained seats.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Ulster has a party system of its own
with 2 Unionist parties, 2 Republican parties and the cross-community Alliance
party.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>In brief we have a much more complex
system than the Republican/Democrat duopoly.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>In many House of Commons seats in England
the result looks something like this</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Conservative 41%</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Liberal Democrat 14 %</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Labour 43 %</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Others 2%</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Assuming that all Conservative and
Labour voters vote Liberal Democrat as their second choice ( in practice
this wouldn't occur 100 % but it is likely that to a great degree
that is what would happen) the Liberal Democrat would win the seat. This
result would probably be repeated in many seats giving a grossly
disproportional outcome.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>In an earlier posting I applied Condorcet
to the 1997 General Election result for the 17 seats in the county of Kent.
I made the assumption that 100% of Conservatives voters and 100% of Labour
voters give a second preference to the Liberal Democrats and that the Liberal
Democrats divide their support 50:50 Conservative: Labour.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>The voters were cast as follows:</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Conservative 40.5%</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Labour
37.2%</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Liberal Democrat 17.0%</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Others 5.4 %</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Under First Past The Post (plurality)
the seats were distributed 9 Conservative, 8 Labour, 0 Liberal Democrat.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Under IRV the seats were distributed
7 Conservative, 8 Labour, 2 Liberal Democrat.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Under Condorcet the seats were distributed
1 Conservative, 3 Labour, 13 Liberal Democrat.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>I simply cannot support a system that
gives a party with 17 % of the vote 77 % of the seats. Whatever theoretical
and conceptual benefits it may have I simply cannot support it.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>I see the attractiveness of Condorcet
( and Approval Voting) as applied to America. They are the single seat
methods which would make it easiest for a third party ( provided it could
attract the second preferences of Democrats and Republicans) to win seats
and break the duopoly ( in practice an extremely difficult task).</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Condorcet ( or Approval Voting) would
appear to be the best methods for changing the current American party system.
However if you change the current system, it will by definition, become
something else. The something else that Condorcet seems to favour is a
Centrist monopoly.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>David Gamble</font></font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br> </blockquote>
</html>