Jump to navigation
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=001712]K... a continuation of this thread[/url]
PR and voter turnout strikes me as bit of a chimera (edited: Italy with an astounding 95% turnout, still gave you Silvio Berlusconi [edit again: oops... apparently turnout has decreased in the last few elections... turnout was only 85%... which leads to another point, voter turnout seems to be going down in a lot of places]). I think [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Transferable_Vote]Wikepedia[/url] pretty much sums up a lot of the PR/FPTP debate:
Most of the arguments for and against STV and proportional representation in general are based around the expected outcomes of the alternative proposed system and not on the system itself.
Familarity of the New Zealand example seems to be pretty indepth here so I'll continue with that. New Zealand has electoral seats and list seats. The list seats are topped up to make the seat distribution proportional and these seats are filled from party lists (which can result in, apparently, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overhang_seat]overhang[/url] or [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underhang_seat]underhang[/url], which near as I can tell have nothing to do with Chad.
So, a question I'm still foggy on, how do those list seats get filled? How does a party decide? Do list candidates lobby the party for seats or the constituents?
[ 11 February 2007: Message edited by: clockwork ]
Originally posted by clockwork:[b]Italy.[/b]
Is a red herring. And it doesn't have a real PR system anyway.
So... voter turnout is only a good thing under a PR system?(!)
Anyway, coloured fish ain't what I want to talk about.