User:RodCrosby/QPR2: Difference between revisions
→Regularity of swing: text
m (→Advantages) |
(→Regularity of swing: text) |
||
Line 144:
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.
===Regularity of swing===
How does PR squared measure up against FPTP's fabled ability to 'throw the rascals out'? Unlike pure PR where only about six seats would switch between Labour and Conservative for every 1% swing - inviting deadlock, or preferential systems such as AV and STV where unpopular parties may be crushed owing to those systems' invitation to 'gang-up' against them, PR-Squared would operate with almost the regular, quiet precision of Big Ben.
Under FPTP, on average since 1974, a net 13.1 seats have changed hands between the two main parties for every unit of swing, although it has varied widely, and been in long-term decline in the UK. In 2001 each unit of swing "swung" just 3 net seats (fewer than PR would deliver!), whereas in 1992 and 2010 it swung around 20.
PR-Squared would deliver an almost identical average of 13.4 seats, but unlike FPTP, would do this more consistently and indefinitely, ranging from 11 to 15, according to simulations.
===Treats third (and smaller) parties more fairly===
| |||