Antonio Oneala wrote: > > */James Gilmour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>/* wrote: > > > Antonio Oneala> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 12:08 AM > > > I've never really been a fan of STV-PR. It's still a system > > that's not independent of irrelevant alternatives, so in most > > states it squeezes out third parties and moderates, unless > > you expand the districts to an enormous size > > On what evidence do you base this assertion? ... > Besides that fact that practically every country that has used STV > has boiled down to a more or less two-party system? > ... > it will usually have a "center squeeze" effect, whereby moderates > are eliminated first. There's fewer opportunities for strategic > nomination than in SNTV, but still, a party can improve their outcome by > running fewer candidates than there are seats, and vote-splitting. > There's also the problem of non-monotonicity, and quite a few other > things.
Couldn't the "center squeeze" effect could be removed by using STV/Condorcet hybrids like CPO-STV (http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/CPO-STV) or STV-CLE (http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/STV-CLE)? ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
