On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:41 PM, James Gilmour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Surely, this is not a matter of opinion? Surely, the result obtained was > more representative of the expressed wishes of the voters > than if SF had won more seats than the Greens? Irrespective of the policies > of the parties involved, it is the wishes of the > voters as recorded by their preferences on the ballot papers that should be > the criterion for assessing the results from any > particular voting system.
Well, if the constituencies were larger (say 10+), then the threshold to get elected drops. This makes it easier for parties to convert FPV into seats. Even though the effective quota in a 10 seater is 9%, a party with 5% national support would likely be able to convert that into 5% of the seats. This is accomplished by concentrating their resources in areas where they are popular. It is not likely that they would have 5% in all constituencies, it would be somewhat random, so they should be able to get near the 9% threshold in some constituencies. However, the smaller (3 to 5 seater) constituencies meant that SF couldn't do that, they had to rely on transfers. The people who voted SF first choice had to settle for their second choice, but they wouldn't have had to if the constituencies were larger. It is similar to viewpoints on having a threshold in party list systems, but slightly different. In effect, parties which are acceptable to other parties in effect have a smaller threshold. (and ofc, this is further muddied by the whole personal vs party vote issue) ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
