Printable View
Without discussing the politics of the country for which I've just started another thread, I've long opposed any move to PR voting systems. I believe some here do agree with them, but can anyone endorse this method?
The ND party in Greece has just been humiliated by the voters. It's votes collapsed from 33.5% of the vote to 18.5%. The outcome? It's number of seats has gone up from 91 to 108.
Does anyone think that makes sense?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_l...election,_2012
But Greece doesn't have a strictly PR system. It gives 50 seats to the largest party...
Which is quite common in so-called PR systems in order to try and get around the problem of PR causing instability and trying to provide grounds for stable governance.
So, PR systems are bad because they allow people to vote wrong? Seems like we could easily expand this to encompass democratic systems in general.
No it's not how people vote thats wrong, it's the system that's stupid.
Every system has its advantages and disadvantages. You see nothing wrong with a system that would effectively disenfranchise 81% of the population for the sake of stability? Why not just go a step further and disenfranchise 100%?
Not that I'd disagree, given democracy's track record, but I bet the Greeks could find a way to screw up even that kind of system, somehow. :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
They did in the early '70s. :o
Need methods that support the condorcet criterion.
That doesn't rule out condorcet methods.
So... Greece just needs a Putin or a Chavez, then? :noob: I think they satisfy Condorcet's conditions, at least within their countries.
Voter stupidity is a completely separate problem.
Is it, though?
Seems to me that it's the very root of the problem, and the unavoidable flaw in any democratic system. Every system tries, somehow, to (unsuccessfully) work around it or mitigate it, but ultimately, we end up with tyrants and idiots and proponents of long-discredited theories and philosophies in power because masses of stupid voters elect them.
No. But that's not proportional. Anyway same could happen in a majority voting system.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
But I like you're way of arguing. Let's take an example that doesn't implement the system you dislike and argue against the system based on that flawed implementation. That's like arguing against universal healthcare based on the UK healthcare system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Which is not PR. More common ways of doing so are an election threshold, I would think. Never heard of this before anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
So your problem isn't with the PR bit of their system, it's with their own addition. So how exactly is this a criticism of PR
Plus, your criticism seems to be that it's not fair that a party got more seats than their share of the vote suggests. Yet at the same time in the Eurogeddon thread you seem to suggest they should have had more seats (like in a FPTP system - the biggest parties get an advantage). In fact, this kind of result is impossible in a proper PR system but is perfectly possible in a FPTP system. So what exactly is your point, if any?