In article , Tim Watts
writes
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.
I didn't say it was less bad, I said it was not perfect. Now perhaps you
can suggest a system that is.
--
bert