Gervase wrote (in parts): > Some people argue that (Plurality) PR can cause too much > diversity.
What is "Plurality PR"? I thought Plurality could give acceptable PR only by chance. Certainly the results of UK Plurality (single-seat and multi-seat) elections at all levels of government show the failure of Plurality to deliver PR. > This can be detrimental when the elected chamber try to vote on > things. This is the reason why Italy went from proportional to a single > seats election. You need to be more specific than just "proportional". Italy used a Party List system of PR, which can have a tendency to encourage party splitting. However, Italy also had many parties before 1919 when it used a majoritarian voting system, so it is doubtful whether the voting system used was a relevant factor in that case. With STV-PR (Choice Voting) we can see examples where the system gave representation to diversity and that diversity has been maintained, eg Northern Ireland, and examples where diversity has reduced from a multi-party parliament to a two-party parliament, eg Malta. > So, there could still be room for Approval and Condorcet. > Nevertheless, I > did (and still do?) agree with you that if you want PR, why > not just stick > with Plurality. Plurality is simple, which is a bonus. Plurality may be simple, but it has little to do with anything I would recognise as "PR". > Immediately below that would be Borda as it is the "next > step" down from > Cardinal Ratings. Borda would be followed by Approval then Condorcet. I am surprised that Borda should receive any serious consideration at all. The defects of this voting system are well known, so why would anyone want to use it? > Meanwhile, Plurality is only proportional > with respect to the top most voted candidate. What does this statement mean? How has "proportional" being interpreted here? James ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info