|
|
|
|
|
|
by monocasa
2005 days ago
|
|
|
Which is also true of Australia which has had instant runoff voting for nearly a century. I would suggest you look at the actual examples in the wild, and see if they have FPTP (or party proportional representation, which is essentially FPTP with all the same spoiler effects), and which don't, and see if they match your expectations to any degree better than random chance. You can prove just about anything in "math" in a vacuum. The recent push for FPTP really strikes me as the kind of wonk stuff that people bend themselves around as a huge fix, when the reality is it empirically doesn't do what people thinks it should do, and comes with it's own problems. It's a lot of wasted political capital for very little if no benefit. |
|
|
No, not really. If you look at Australia's parliament, you'll see that even though Labor and Liberal are the biggest party, they 'only' make up 60% of the seats. That's not really good, but it's a far cry from Canada's 82% (or the US's 99%)
> I would suggest you look at the actual examples in the wild
That's a very good suggestion. I actually already did that and I can assure you not using FPTP results in much more and smaller parties.
Examples:
- Ireland (STV)
- Northern Ireland Assembly (STV)
- Papua New Guinea (IRV)
> The recent push for FPTP
Do you mean 'against FPTP'? Because I can assure you that I'm not pushing for FPTP at all.