User:RodCrosby/QPR2: Difference between revisions
m
→Overall majority possible: while
m (→More hung parliaments: February) |
m (→Overall majority possible: while) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 164:
===Overall majority possible===
Under the system, simulations of the elections of 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992, 1997, 2001 and 2019 would have still produced overall majorities,
===No practical possibility of "wrong-winner" election===
No other constituency-based system offers this, including FPTP. Under simulations, PR squared gets the very close election of February 1974 "right", whereas under FPTP, the national vote plurality winners (the Conservatives) were reduced to second place in seats. Similar FPTP "inversions" occurred in 1951 and 1929.
Line 268:
Simulations indicate that whatever method is employed, including Buhagiar's preferred Priority Queue, such anomalies cannot be avoided entirely, and are just subjectively more or less "unfair" to the particular candidates affected. Simulations also suggest that only a handful of allocations would meet such conflicts (usually fewer than 20 in a house of 650, or about 3% of the seats). Of these 3%, many, if not most, of the largest remainders would belong to the smaller parties in any case. The number of actual remainder quota "inversions" might be counted on the fingers of one hand.
An alternative resolution of these approximately 20 seat conflicts would be to follow that method recommended for the Dual Member Proportional System. In this case, simply award the seat to the party with the largest remainder quota, and the party denied the seat would utilise its next best reminder quota for its next viable allocation
Whichever method is adopted, simulations show that around 97% of the declarations will be straightforward, employing either FPTP or full quota, or best remainder quotas.
| |||