<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
Reply to Kevin Venzke and Rob Speer<BR>
<BR>
Whilst using an electoral system ( for example Condorcet) which will tend to over represent the median voter is not the worst idea I've ever seen posted ( unlike "giving a veto to every voter in a certain central chunk" taken as read) it is still a pretty poor one. <BR>
<BR>
Votes cast by all voters are equally valid, of equal worth and should be treated so. The electoral system use should reflect this. Parties and groups should be represented in approximate proportion to the support they enjoy as measured by the votes cast. Nobody should be under or over represented. The median voter ( an increasingly vague and ill-defined term if you consider politics on more than a single left-centre-right dimension, different median voters for different issues) should be given no special consideration.<BR>
<BR>
For most legislation a majority is all that is necessary for the legislation to be legitimate. For certain issues ( fundamental rights, amending a constitution, etc) where consensus is necessary, not meerly a bare majority, you should require 66.7% or 75% support. I'm pretty happy with the idea of constitutional checks and balances.<BR>
<BR>
David Gamble </FONT></HTML>