<html>
David Gamble wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font size=2>Firstly I have never
said and do not pretend for a minute that IRV or any other single seat
method has the potential to produce good proportionality.
</font></blockquote><br>
Well I suppose it depends how you define "good
proportionality". You did say that it will tend to produce
better proportionality in the conditions I outlined. I agree you
never said that it would be as good as multi-winner STV or somesuch, but
I never implied that either.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font size=2>Single seat methods
will give proportionality only by chance. <br><br>
However IRV does have advantages over Plurality in a 3 party system. In
Britain many seats are won under Plurality with a candidate getting less
than half the vote. It is fairly easy under this system for a party
disliked by the majority to win individual seats on a split vote and
thereby win elections on a split vote due to a divided opposition.
</font></blockquote><br>
Which is basically, what I said about plurality in "option
1". We're not disagreeing on any facts, just on interpretation
of them.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font size=2>Whilst strongly
preferring a proportional system to IRV if the choice was between IRV and
Plurality I would choose IRV as better than the status
quo.</font></blockquote><br>
Which was basically my point - IRV, once again, only looks good when we
compare it to a very bad alternative.<br><br>
-Adam</html>