<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
Adam Tarr wrote:<BR>
<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>
No not exactly, Plurality and IRV in single seats can give a party 70 % of the seats for 35- 40% of the vote. This is a bad thing.<BR>
<BR>
Condorcet in single member seats has the potential to give a party that positions itself in the centre 70 % of seats with 20% of the vote. This is a worse thing ( even if the party is the most generally preferred party).<BR>
<BR>
Adam also wrote:<BR>
<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 realise 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>
A lot of the argument in the well explored turkey thread involved how the word appeal could be replaced with the words " does not offend" or " is disliked least ".<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Also:<BR>
<BR>
"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>
Yes I suppose that's true. I'd really prefer that nobody was over (or under) represented. <BR>
<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>
Yes you are correct, I thought I had seen such posts but I can't find them now . I am glad to be proved wrong on this point. It is reassuring that nobody has proposed such a dubious idea.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Eric Gore wrote:<BR>
<BR>
What about situations where PR is not appropriate?<BR>
<BR>
Would it be accurate to say that you disagree with Arrow that a <BR>
voting system should be monotonic? (IRV is not)<BR>
<BR>
The only situations when PR is not appropriate is when PR is not possible. In those instances ( for a single position) we are left with trying to use the least bad single seat method.<BR>
<BR>
Whilst leaving to one side what Arrow may or may not have said about monotonicity. I think the following:<BR>
<BR>
Monotonicity is undoubtedly a desirable feature of an electoral method. I do however feel that no method can be perfect and that other features are more important ( proportional representation of parties, proportional representation of opinion, maximum freedom of voter choice regarding the individuals who represent you, etc).<BR>
<BR>
As to the non-monotonicity of IRV and STV let me give an alternative definition of non-monotonicity <BR>
<BR>
" Non-monotonicity -something that occurs more frequently in theoretical examples than real elections "<BR>
<BR>
I am aware that certain people who post to electoral systems list have a " thing" about monotonicity ( or a lack of it) and that for certain people ( and I wasn't thinking of Eric) this can sometimes appear to reach the proportions of a morbid obsession.<BR>
<BR>
David Gamble<BR>
<BR>
I<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>