For district seats, that is proportional representation. It doesnt say it is winner take all. When it says that blue or red wins, it is just saying that they won the majority, and have dominate power over whatever government body they represent.
When there is one seat, two parties, and you’re using First Past the Post voting (which is a terrible voting system that inevitably causes the two party divide), yes. They perfect out come is majority win. When distributing multiple district seats, proportional representation is the perfect outcome, which that also acheives.
When there is one seat, two parties, and you’re using First Past the Post voting (which is a terrible voting system that inevitably causes the two party divide), yes
So we can agree the system is inherently bad at representation?
Sounds more like that outcome is the “least bad” rather than “perfect”.
First Past the Post is objectively a problem in general. However, if there are only two candidates, and thus only possible outcomes, with one possible seat, all forms of voting will be functionally identical to FPTP in result. So in this given example, “least bad” and “perfect” are synonymous.
Now if there was a third+ party or more candidates from the two parties, and alternative forms of voting, then things do get more complicated. But the point of the example is to show, in simplist terms, how districting works in an ideal world, and how Gerrymandering can warp the end results to give either the advantage.
Except that the lack of a third candidate is partially because of the FPTP system. It’s a waste of time, money and energy to try to compete with the Dems and the Reps. In a ranked voting system, or even a two-round system like we have in France, I guarantee you you’d see more candidates, because people then wouldn’t just “vote useful”.
Except that the lack of a third candidate is partially because of the FPTP system.
Right, that’s what I said in my previous comment. Ranked Choice is an improvement, yes. Though, I think it still is too easy to push the winning vote to the more polar candidates. If the centrist doesn’t rile up passionate supporters (because what centrist does), they are more likely to be dropped in the first round even though they were ranked 1 or 2 for nearly everyone. I prefer Approval voting as my ideal alternative. It does tend to push more toward center, but if the idea is true democratic representation, then that would be the natural result, right? But anything is better than FPTP.
So, “perfect representation” is when one side wins that does not represent 40% of the votes?
When there’s just two “teams”, yeah. What’s more fair than majority rule in that situation?
Maybe proportional representation instead of winner takes it all?
For district seats, that is proportional representation. It doesnt say it is winner take all. When it says that blue or red wins, it is just saying that they won the majority, and have dominate power over whatever government body they represent.
When there is one seat, two parties, and you’re using First Past the Post voting (which is a terrible voting system that inevitably causes the two party divide), yes. They perfect out come is majority win. When distributing multiple district seats, proportional representation is the perfect outcome, which that also acheives.
So we can agree the system is inherently bad at representation?
Sounds more like that outcome is the “least bad” rather than “perfect”.
First Past the Post is objectively a problem in general. However, if there are only two candidates, and thus only possible outcomes, with one possible seat, all forms of voting will be functionally identical to FPTP in result. So in this given example, “least bad” and “perfect” are synonymous.
Now if there was a third+ party or more candidates from the two parties, and alternative forms of voting, then things do get more complicated. But the point of the example is to show, in simplist terms, how districting works in an ideal world, and how Gerrymandering can warp the end results to give either the advantage.
Except that the lack of a third candidate is partially because of the FPTP system. It’s a waste of time, money and energy to try to compete with the Dems and the Reps. In a ranked voting system, or even a two-round system like we have in France, I guarantee you you’d see more candidates, because people then wouldn’t just “vote useful”.
Right, that’s what I said in my previous comment. Ranked Choice is an improvement, yes. Though, I think it still is too easy to push the winning vote to the more polar candidates. If the centrist doesn’t rile up passionate supporters (because what centrist does), they are more likely to be dropped in the first round even though they were ranked 1 or 2 for nearly everyone. I prefer Approval voting as my ideal alternative. It does tend to push more toward center, but if the idea is true democratic representation, then that would be the natural result, right? But anything is better than FPTP.