"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 08/06/15 21:16, bert wrote:
In article , Tim Watts

It does not change the fact that a system that gives the seats vs
votes above is broken.
It may be imperfect but you don't advance your argument by exaggerating
your case.

It's not an exaggeration - it is a statement of pure and unarguable
quantitative fact which no one can dispute.

The only thing that is debatable is "is it right?". I say no.

And I remain aware of all the arguments as to why the classic "solutions"
are somehow "worse".

This does not change the basic arguments:

1) I would claim (not a fact) that the typical man on the Clapham Omnibus
considers he is voting for the government, over and over a local MP, even
though he is aware that the mechanics mean he is actually voting for an MP
for his constituency. By this I mean, he is more concerned about the
candidate's party affiliation than he is the candidate.

2) The numbers show (a fact) a large mismatch between seats awarded and
votes cast over the nation.

3) Saying that FPTP is less bad than some of the alternatives does not
mean that is it right to give up seeking a better system. People who think
like that would never have invented anything.

The problem with that line is that we have tried a great raft
of alternatives for centuries now, arguably millennia in fact
and it is just a little unlikely that there is going to be anything
invented that does any better any time soon.