Could FPTP and PR be made compatible? By: Machjo (27 replies) February 5, 2009 - 9:54pm
- Interested Observer By: Wilf Day (Feb 8 2009 - 1:05pm)
- Machjo wrote:In response to By: Interested Observer (Feb 8 2009 - 2:51am)
- Wilf Day wrote:Interested By: Interested Observer (Feb 8 2009 - 2:44am)
- In response to Stockholm's By: Machjo (Feb 7 2009 - 10:19pm)
- Stockholm wrote: "Another By: Machjo (Feb 7 2009 - 10:10pm)
- Machjo wrote:But would the By: Wilf Day (Feb 7 2009 - 6:48pm)
- Just maybe if we made the By: Assembly Talker (Feb 7 2009 - 6:11pm)
- "Another thing I've noticed By: Stockholm (Feb 7 2009 - 1:34pm)
- But would the pro-PR crowd By: Assembly Talker (Feb 7 2009 - 1:22pm)
- Machjo, It depends on how By: Interested Observer (Feb 6 2009 - 9:30pm)
- Assembly Talker wrote: By: Machjo (Feb 6 2009 - 5:38pm)
- Machjo,Citizens Assembly By: Assembly Talker (Feb 6 2009 - 4:10pm)
- mimeguy wrote:The senate By: Policywonk (Feb 6 2009 - 3:41pm)
- My personal favorite is the By: Interested Observer (Feb 6 2009 - 3:00pm)
- sorry for the multiple post By: mimeguy (Feb 6 2009 - 1:16pm)
- sorry for the multiple post By: mimeguy (Feb 6 2009 - 1:16pm)
- The senate needs reform. By: mimeguy (Feb 6 2009 - 1:14pm)
- STV isn't so bad I suppose. By: Machjo (Feb 6 2009 - 12:46pm)
- There is no need to invent By: Wilf Day (Feb 6 2009 - 12:14am)
- "One problem with MMP is By: Stockholm (Feb 5 2009 - 11:57pm)
- Thank you stockholm for the By: Machjo (Feb 5 2009 - 11:16pm)
- Stockholm wrote:The question By: Machjo (Feb 5 2009 - 11:14pm)
- Unionist wrote:Please do not By: Machjo (Feb 5 2009 - 11:03pm)
- Re: Could FPTP and PR be made compatible? By: Unionist (Feb 5 2009 - 10:42pm)
- The question is "could PR By: Stockholm (Feb 5 2009 - 10:41pm)
- Interesting. Have you got a By: Machjo (Feb 5 2009 - 10:04pm)
- It's not what I would By: Fidel (Feb 5 2009 - 10:00pm)
One problem with MMP is that those who oppose party politics or too much official recognition of a political party would refuse to vote for a party, thus giving them half the votes of those who can vote for both. STV would be a preferable system from the standpoint of a FPTP supporter since it doesn't have to recognize any party.
Looking at it that way we could draw the following spectiom:
FPTP -> STV -> what I'd proposed above -> MMP -> pure RP.
The main advantage that I could see with what I'd proposed above is that it's fair to both sides. unlike the MMP and pure RP systems, it doesn't force anyone to vote for any party without losing votes, but unlike the FRTP and STV systems, it does allow one to vote for a party if he wants to.
The weakness with what I've proposed above, at least in the crude form it stand in now, is that it would also be the most inefficient of the systems above, in that it would likely take a few days for the parties to decide how to strategically place their votes to get the maximum number of candidates.