I can assure you, Ben, that as somebody who comes from a country (Ireland) that uses PR/STV/PV/&c., it doesn’t introduces tiering between the different representatives. Frankly, such a large number of tallies go to second and third counts just to elect the first seat that this could never come into play.

Anyway, it’s what you do once you’re elected that gets you credo, not how you were elected.

Because, as nearly everyone agreed last time we discussed this, STV sucks?

STV does indeed suck. But, tragically, this hasn’t stopped Labour from introducing it in the UK: it’s used in Northern Ireland, and they’re planning to inflict it on the Scots.

I also can’t see why anyone would support STV. A basic property of a voting system should be that a voter ranking a candidate higher should increase the candidate’s prospects of a win. STV doesn’t do this. It also makes it impossible for voters to figure the right way to vote in order to get the result they want.

Because, as nearly everyone agreed last time we discussed this, STV sucks?

The reason Labour hasn’t introduced preferential voting in Britain is that the current system is massively biaed in favour of the Labour party. In political terms the number of Labour MPs is so greatly disproportional to party’s actual vote that the leadership would in effect have to convince Turkeys to vote for Christmas.

This bias also goes far beyond seats being disproportional to votes. The systems is actively stacked in favour of Labour and against the Conservatives. (The bias isn’t just in favour of the biggest party.) The geography of the UK means Labour votes are more efficiently distibuted than Conservative votes. For the Conservatives to get the same number of seats as Labour they need a far higher number of votes (I think about +5%).

The bias used to be in favour of the Conservatives but has shifted over the last 50 years to a substantial boost to Labour. The standard treatment of this issue is From Votes to Seats which is worth reading.

If the Conservatives ever get more votes than Labour, but Labour gets a majority – something which I think will happen eventually – it will really damage public faith in democracy.

I probably meant to type: “Legislatures created by PV also might not like it since it creates a sort over the members; bucketing them according to which round they got elected in.”

An effect is a bit like getting pick last for dodge ball.

I don’t want to put too much weight on the particulars of my argument though. My point is that if you want to shift to PV you need to seek advantages for most of the players, particularly the institutions.

Ben Hyde: “The legislatures created by PV also don’t like it creates a sorts the members into which round they got elected in.”

I am going to imagine that Brian Weatherson (April 15th, 2005 at 8:01 am) was just trying to respond in the same spirit when he wrote: “I’ve known a handful of MPs elected by PV (and I’m others here know many more than I do)”

Anyway, Ben can you resubmit the sentence in question to clarify.

And to JQ: can you talk to your confreres at CT about getting a PREVIEW button?

Thanks

Nor do I remember any government lacking legitimacy because it was elected on preferences. In 1998 Howard won with

The government may also find that PV doesn’t serve it’s needs since PV tends to undermine the mandate of the governments it creates. It’s a bit difficult to govern if 30% of the votes that elected you where second or worse votes. The legislatures created by PV also don’t like it creates a sorts the members into which round they got elected in.

What costs/benefits does PV bring to the various institutions in the game – that is the key question.