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

> rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> 
> >> 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 ersonalities
> >> who built up a support base. Would you care to nominate potential
> >> STV constituencies in the UK where smaller parties would likely win
> >> seats?
> 
> > Come now! Brighton and Hove for starters.
> 
> That's a starter for the Greens but what about UKIP and the BNP? 
> (On the London Assembly results the BNP would be struggling in a 
> City & East 6 member STV seat, especially if the General Election 
> brings higher turnout.) 

If a small minority can't gather enough or wider support to win such a 
seat, why should they be represented in an assembly? It is about 
governance not simple arithmetic, after all.

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

wrote in message
news:DKmdnYhH3O8-A1TXnZ2dnUVZ8s2dnZ2d@giganews.com...

> If a small minority can't gather enough or wider support to win such a
> seat, why should they be represented in an assembly? It is about
> governance not simple arithmetic, after all.

That sounds like an argument in favour of the status quo.

--
Guy Barry

rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:

>> >> 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 ersonalities
>> >> who built up a support base. Would you care to nominate potential
>> >> STV constituencies in the UK where smaller parties would likely win
>> >> seats?

>> > Come now! Brighton and Hove for starters.

>> That's a starter for the Greens but what about UKIP and the BNP?
>> (On the London Assembly results the BNP would be struggling in a
>> City & East 6 member STV seat, especially if the General Election
>> brings higher turnout.)

> If a small minority can't gather enough or wider support to win such a
> seat, why should they be represented in an assembly? It is about
> governance not simple arithmetic, after all.

If they have enough support but geographically dispersed then the logic of 
the PR arguments is that they should be represented and not denied because 
of the location of boundaries or concentration.

Tim Roll-Pickering  wrote:
> If they have enough support but geographically dispersed then the logic of
> the PR arguments is that they should be represented and not denied because
> of the location of boundaries or concentration.

*All* electoral systems seek some degree of proportionality. To view
the systems on offer as being PR or not-PR is too simplistic: rather,
it's a dimension. FPTP is only acceptable as it offers some degree of
proportionality, and the need for proportionality would seem to have
been a factor in tweaking how FPTP is operated in this country
(keeping the number of MPs high, reducing the use of multi-member
elections under FPTP).

All electoral systems have, either by statute or through the mechanics
of how they work, an electoral threshold below which parties are not
represented. FPTP has a high threshold, but one that is sensitive to
how geographically heterogeneous a party's support is.

STV is much more proportional than FPTP and has a much lower electoral
threshold. However, with STV too, the threshold is sensitive to how
geographically heterogeneous a party's support is. Thus, both FPTP and
STV value a local clustering of supporters more than those same
supporters spread evenly across the country. Some people believe that
it is a desirable feature to have.

What do you mean by "the logic of the PR arguments"? There are
arguments focused on increasing proportionality, but few would contend
that proportionality is the only factor that matters in the choice of
an electoral system or that the electoral threshold should be as low
as possible.

I find arguments comparing system A to system B rather boring! It
seems better to me for the discussants to determine what features are
desired (how proportional? ordinal? encourages single-party wins?
propensity for tactical voting? complexity?) and then they can select
what system best delivers those features. That said, whichever
features one desires, there seem few situations under which FPTP is
optimal.
--
Henry

"Henry Potts"  wrote in message
news:1cdf8392-ae9e-4f6b-9bc7-93f89051a122@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...

> I find arguments comparing system A to system B rather boring! It
> seems better to me for the discussants to determine what features are
> desired (how proportional? ordinal? encourages single-party wins?
> propensity for tactical voting? complexity?) and then they can select
> what system best delivers those features. That said, whichever
> features one desires, there seem few situations under which FPTP is
> optimal.

I'd say that one of the most desirable features of an electoral system is
that it encourages people to vote at all.  Too many people nowadays simply
don't bother because they can't see that their vote will make any
difference.  Almost any system would be better than FPTP in this respect.

--
Guy Barry

Guy Barry wrote:

> I'd say that one of the most desirable features of an electoral system is
> that it encourages people to vote at all.  Too many people nowadays simply
> don't bother because they can't see that their vote will make any
> difference.  Almost any system would be better than FPTP in this respect.

I think most voters don't follow the voting system details - they're not 
exactly flocking to Euro or Assembly or devolved parliament elections. The 
belief their vote doesn't make a difference is more deep rooted in the 
seemingly similar outcomes and failure of parties to deliver on promises. 
Whatever voting system is used there is still going to be that problem.

"Tim Roll-Pickering"  wrote in message
news:7iurl9F33mopsU1@mid.individual.net...

> I think most voters don't follow the voting system details

If that's true, there's unlikely to ever be popular support for electoral
reform.  People are unlikely to go out and vote for something they don't
care about.

--
Guy Barry