<html>
David Gamble wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font size=2>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). </font></blockquote><br>
Has ANYONE on this list said that they want single-member districts using
Condorcet voting? I don't remember ever hearing that. Some
people have expressed a desire to have single-winner districts in the
past (to get a closer link to the voters) but most offer a caveat of some
mixed member proportionality.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font size=2>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.</font></blockquote><br>
Doesn't that suggest that arguing that Condorcet is bad because it fails
to produce proportionality, is sort of missing the point?<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font size=2>I still believe that
for single offices Condorcet is too favourable towards candidates
of parties who successfully position themselves in the
centre.</font></blockquote><br>
Right, candidates who appeal to the largest group of voters tend to win
Condorcet elections. You say this like it's a bad thing. Such
a candidate also always wins IRV elections if the voters use sufficiently
intelligent strategy. Smart voters who realize their edge candidate
will lose in the final runoff will abandon their first choice and vote
for the centrist. It's just easier and requires less guesswork on
the voter's part with a good Condorcet method.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font size=2>Domination by any
single party be it of the left, right or centre is not a good
thing.</font></blockquote><br>
I'm sure Alex would agree. The point was simply that, if you had to
pick a party that was going to be disproportionately represented, you'd
want it to be the most moderate party. IRV (and plurality for that
matter) can produce disproportionate results that swing wildly from too
far left to too far right.<br><br>
-Adam</html>