<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
James Gilmour wrote:<BR>
<BR>
"All that David's post confirms is that NO single winner system should be<BR>
used to elect a mulit-member committee, council, assembly or parliament<BR>
if that body is supposed to be representative of those who voted in its<BR>
election. If that is the objective (one I would strongly support), you<BR>
should use a voting system designed for that purpose.<BR>
<BR>
IRV and Condorcet are designed for single-winner situations and neither<BR>
should be condemned because they fail to give good or consistent PR in<BR>
multi-winner elections."<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
In James Armytage-Green's post he refers to a scenario in which Congress is elected in single-member districts by Condorcet. This is what a number of people posting on this list appear to support ( though James Armytage-Green supports CPO-STV in multi-member districts as an ideal method). <BR>
<BR>
I have stated in several postings that there can be nothing proportional about the allocation of a single seat and that all single-member methods can produce bad results when used to elect multi-member bodies.<BR>
<BR>
The point of the post was to illustrate that under IRV to get a similar bad (disproportional) result the Centre party has at least to get a reasonable proportion of first preference support. Under Condorcet a party perceived as centrist could win a majority with a small percentage of the first preferences.<BR>
<BR>
I still believe that for single offices Condorcet is too favourable towards candidates of parties who successfully position themselves in the centre.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Alex Small wrote :<BR>
<BR>
"However, as long as you stick to single-member districts, the centrist<BR>
dominance is probably the most desirable result. Suppose the legislature<BR>
were divided 40% left, 40% right, 20% center, and this distribution more<BR>
or less reflect the percentage of voters favoring each party. On any<BR>
given issue, the center would hold the balance of power. Now, if you got<BR>
a legislature with a centrist majority by using Condorcet, the end result<BR>
is the same. It's not the fairest way to achieve that result (PR is,<BR>
IMHO) but it's not a drastic distortion of what the final legislative<BR>
product would have been either."<BR>
<BR>
Domination by any single party be it of the left, right or centre is not a good thing.<BR>
<BR>
Alex also wrote:<BR>
<BR>
"Next, about the Liberal Democrats: I understand that in Europe, many<BR>
political parties, be they left, right, or other, include the word<BR>
"Democrats" in their name. I also understand that in the UK the word<BR>
"liberal" does not really denote "left" as it does in the US. I read the<BR>
Economist, and the editors use the word "liberal" to denote free markets<BR>
and civil liberties. So, am I correct in assuming that the Liberal<BR>
Democrats in the UK are not at all what America's liberal Democrats would<BR>
be? Is their platform more of a mix of free markets and social<BR>
liberalism?"<BR>
<BR>
Regarding the names of European political parties Democrat has little meaning other than that the party supports Democracy. In Germany the major party on the left is the Social Democrats and the major party on the right is the Christian Democrats. <BR>
<BR>
Liberal in the context of British politics ( but not necessarily those of continental Europe) has the same meaning as in America. With regard to economics it can be used to denote a free market approach.<BR>
<BR>
The Liberal Democrats ( and previously the Social Democrat/ Liberal Alliance and the Liberal party the two groupings that preceded them) have traditionally presented themselves as being equidistant from Conservative and Labour and have generally been perceived as that ( centrist ) by voters. Liberal Democrat party members/ activists and Liberal party members/ activists before them, however would probably consider their party as a radical, reforming party of the non-socialist left. Though a position of equidistance was officially maintained for many years between Conservatives and Labour many Liberal Democrat party members would have found a coalition with the Conservatives completely unacceptable.<BR>
<BR>
Radical free market ideas in Britain are associated with the Conservatives in general and the Conservative right in particular and were only really prominent during Margaret Thatcher's period as Conservative leader.<BR>
<BR>
David Gamble<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>