In article , 
T.C.Roll-Pickering@qmul.ac.uk (Tim Roll-Pickering) wrote:

> Henry Potts wrote:
> 
> > I wholeheartedly support the LibDem and ERS view that we should 
> > use
> > STV. That's because I value both greater proportionality *and*
> > ordinality, and STV delivers both.
> 
> Not entirely. The STV proposed is generally for about 5 member 
> constituencies that will help the Lib Dems but won't be so great 
> for smaller parties like UKIP, the Greens and the BNP whose support 
> is rarely concentrated even in a natural cluster. The AV+ proposal 
> had the similar problem that it would largely help third and second 
> parties rather than smaller ones.

So, you claim, but not really borne out in Ireland, despite its limitation 
these days to 3-5 member seats.

> > It is also the case that ordinality complicates what we mean by
> > proportional. Calculations of proportionality that look at the first
> > preference vote only do not properly represent what AV or STV achieve.
> 
> Well let's take a look at the Australian election results. There 
> one of the key concepts is the "2 Party Preferred" vote - i.e. when 
> all votes are transferred the full way does the voter prefer Labor 
> or the Liberal/National Coalition? For all elections since 1983 the 
> ballot papers have been transferred all the way, even when its not 
> necessary, so both first and final preferences are available.
> 
> The other factors to remember about Australian federal elections 
> are that it is compulsory to use *all* preferences for a vote to be 
> valid; and that on polling day party activists stand outside 
> polling stations and distribute "How To Vote" cards recommending an 
> order of preferences. Although not all voters follow them, they are 
> significant in determining the outcome.
> 
> The figures are as follows:

[mostly snipped]

> 1990:
> 
> First Preferences:
> Labor: 3,904,138 39.44% 78 seats
> Liberals: 3,468,570 35.04% 55 seats
> Australian Democrats: 1,114,216 11.26% 0 seats
> Nationals: 833,557 8.42% 14 seats
> Independents: 252,116 2.55% 1 seat
> Other: 327,077 3.30% 0 seats
> 
> 2PP:
> Labor: 49.90% 78 seats
> Coalition: 50.10% 69 seats

So, a system which can ignore over a million voters and give them no 
representation at all deserves serious consideration?

-- 
Cllr. Colin Rosenstiel
Cambridge                    http://www.rosenstiel.co.uk/
Cambridge Liberal Democrats: http://www.cambridgelibdems.org.uk/

On Oct 4, 2:57 pm, rosenst...@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> > First Preferences:
> > Labor: 3,904,138 39.44% 78 seats
> > Liberals: 3,468,570 35.04% 55 seats
> > Australian Democrats: 1,114,216 11.26% 0 seats
> > Nationals: 833,557 8.42% 14 seats
> > Independents: 252,116 2.55% 1 seat
> > Other: 327,077 3.30% 0 seats
>
> > 2PP:
> > Labor: 49.90% 78 seats
> > Coalition: 50.10% 69 seats
>
> So, a system which can ignore over a million voters and give them no
> representation at all deserves serious consideration?

In a limited choice between two systems that both do that, that is
were an AV vs. FPTP referendum ever come to pass, then, yes, it would
deserve serious consideration for arguably being better than the
alternative.
--
Henry

rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:

>> Not entirely. The STV proposed is generally for about 5 member
>> constituencies that will help the Lib Dems but won't be so great
>> for smaller parties like UKIP, the Greens and the BNP whose support
>> is rarely concentrated even in a natural cluster. The AV+ proposal
>> had the similar problem that it would largely help third and second
>> parties rather than smaller ones.

> So, you claim, but not really borne out in Ireland, despite its limitation
> these days to 3-5 member seats.

Well the Greens and Sinn Fein haven't exactly been doing well lately but 
both parties have by and large made limited breakthroughs because of 
concentrated vote bases and personalities who built up a support base. Would 
you care to nominate potential STV constituencies in the UK where smaller 
parties would likely win seats?

>> 1990:

>> First Preferences:
>> Labor: 3,904,138 39.44% 78 seats
>> Liberals: 3,468,570 35.04% 55 seats
>> Australian Democrats: 1,114,216 11.26% 0 seats
>> Nationals: 833,557 8.42% 14 seats
>> Independents: 252,116 2.55% 1 seat
>> Other: 327,077 3.30% 0 seats

>> 2PP:
>> Labor: 49.90% 78 seats
>> Coalition: 50.10% 69 seats

> So, a system which can ignore over a million voters and give them no
> representation at all deserves serious consideration?

Well the Democrats' first preference vote for the House was in part inflated 
because they tended to pick up "false" first preferences from voters who 
couldn't easily decide between Labor and the Coalition so hid their 
preference beneath the Democrats. Antony Green (Australia's answer to Peter 
Snow and Tony King rolled into one) touches on this point on his latest blog 
post comparing the voting breakdowns for the Democrats and Greens:

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2009/10/comparing-the-greens-and-australian-democrats.html

It should always be remembered that the Democrats largely pitched themselves 
as, and were seen by voters as, a Senate based party offering the prospect 
of checks & balances (especially after the debacles that led to the 
Dismissal) and their House vote was largely a by-product. That said 1990 was 
one of their big push years with their leader making a high profile bid for 
the House (unsuccessfully).