and boy, was getting the details trickier than any sensible person might have hoped
Yeah, that's what I suspected. People arguing for a PRish principle tend not to go into the fine print, in that stage.
a form of SVT, but they would create bigger constituencies and multiple MPs being selected per constituency
Eeep. Okay, that is just me -- STV and multiple member system are the two I find most confusing just by themselves. *g* But I'd still find it preferable to first past the post. As the PR risk of electing some weirdo.... weeeell. At some point, if you got the weirdo voters, the guy they're electing isn't really the problem. And depriving 70% of a constituency of the representation they wanted because of the hypothetical weirdos isn't something I find helpful.
If I ran the world, I'd give you guys the German system, of which I am a fan not because it's German. (And we were very concerned about weirdos and the like when they set it up, and it worked well for that.) But it's fallen strangely out of fashion.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-09 07:19 am (UTC)Yeah, that's what I suspected. People arguing for a PRish principle tend not to go into the fine print, in that stage.
a form of SVT, but they would create bigger constituencies and multiple MPs being selected per constituency
Eeep. Okay, that is just me -- STV and multiple member system are the two I find most confusing just by themselves. *g* But I'd still find it preferable to first past the post. As the PR risk of electing some weirdo.... weeeell. At some point, if you got the weirdo voters, the guy they're electing isn't really the problem. And depriving 70% of a constituency of the representation they wanted because of the hypothetical weirdos isn't something I find helpful.
If I ran the world, I'd give you guys the German system, of which I am a fan not because it's German. (And we were very concerned about weirdos and the like when they set it up, and it worked well for that.) But it's fallen strangely out of fashion.