> 
> > The effects of preference voting are a bit subtle, and will 
> produce a 
> > result that the majority are happy with
> 
> MMP, as in NZ, isn't preferential. An option offered when the 
> country changed was STV, single transferrable vote, which 
> some commentators argue would have been a far better choice than MMP
> 
> http://www.elections.org.nz/study/history/history-mmp.html


That's rather fascinating.  I always thought NZ was the first to have
preferential voting.  Turns out you did, but didn't quite use it, even
though you were supposed to.  More interesting is each party was happy with
FPP.  Beats dealing with the minorities, I guess.

MMP doesn't really guarantee a small party a seat though.  I guess if you
can't get 1/120th of the vote, you might as well go home.  The same party
just might scrape in under STV (few primary votes, strong secondary votes).

'NZ First' is exactly the same as Australia's 'One Nation' party (wogs go
home, more law and order, less tax etc).  'One Nation' is pretty much dead
in Oz, maybe it's because they didn't pinch 'Bob the Builder's' catch
phrase.  Classic.

Tony

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist