Comments on: UK Referendum On Voting

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sun, 01 May 2011 05:46:02 +0000

As Badtux keeps pointing out, FPTP is designed to preserve the two-party system, which is why preferential voting is becoming quite common in primaries, but not in general elections. We have it in our primaries as “IR voting”.

If you use preferential voting you don’t need separate primaries, so it would save a lot of money.

By: Steve Bates

Steve Bates — Sun, 01 May 2011 04:45:35 +0000

Somehow it is unsurprising that Duffy prefers a system that almost always assures, in races with more than two candidates, a victory by a candidate who does not even achieve a majority among voters. That’s “democracy”? really? that’s a funny name for a system that frequently elects a candidate against whom a majority of voters voted. Democracy, MFA!

For what it’s worth, FPTP is the most common system in America, too, and here, too, it is favored by candidates who couldn’t get a legitimate majority if their lives depended on it. At least Preferential/Alternative/IR voting* has a reasonable chance in single-winner, multi-candidate races of reflecting something like the will of the people. FPTP is almost guaranteed NOT to produce that result if there are three or more candidates.
==========
* (I hate the term “instant runoff voting,” but that is a fairly common usage you need to look for if you’re searching the web.)

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 16:21:03 +0000

Oh, yes, totally unfair system, which is why it is used to elect all of the party leaders and hence the Prime Ministers of Britain [/sarcasm]