FPTP vs MMP

[JoeHill]

Evan Leibovitch wrote: 

> Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> > 39 out of 129 seats is 30% not 45%.  So instead of 107 ridings you end
> > up with 90 ridings, so yes a decrease would occour.  It takes 3% or more
> > of the popular vote before you can get any of the proportional seats
> > (which makes sense since 2% would require 50 seats and there are only
> > 39 of them available)
> >     
> The numbers such as 3% and 39 seats are completely arbitrary. They give
> the Greens power while shutting out the Family Coalition Party.

I'm cool with that ;)

> As such, they indicate a wilful manipulation designed to advance the cause
> of small parties -- providing they're not too small. And the definition of
> " what is too small" is totally arbitrary.
> 
> While FPTP has its downsides, it doesn't by design impose arbitrary
> limits on anything.
> 
> And, as I mentioned before, MMP is designed to work against independent
> candidates as well as really small parties.

Waitaminnit...I thought you said the MMP benefitted fringe parties, a bad
thing. Now it's a bad thing that it doesn't let in _enough_ fringe parties?

Okay...

-- 
JoeHill
++++++++++++++++++++
 "Who was that guy?" -Fry 
 "Your momma! Now shut up and drag me to work." -Bender 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://gtalug.org/pipermail/legacy/attachments/20071010/393d4820/attachment.sig>