<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Adam Tarr wrote:<BR>
<BR>
>Axiom 1 - We're electing a legislature. There are three (perhaps more) <BR>
>parties. The "centrist" party is the weakest, in terms of first-place <BR>
>preference.<BR>
>Axiom 2 - Truly proportional, multi-member districts are not possible(*) but <BR>
>we want the overall results to have some degree of proportionality.<BR>
<BR>
and<BR>
<BR>
>Conclusion - use IRV, since it has the potential to produce good <BR>
>proportionality, whereas the other methods are almost assured of producing <BR>
>lousy proportionality.<BR>
<BR>
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. 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. <BR>
<BR>
The lowest percentage of the vote for a winner in 2001 was 29.9% in a 4 way contest in Scotland.<BR>
<BR>
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.<BR>
<BR>
David Gamble<BR>
</FONT></HTML>