Imagine that we both had 50% of the power to design a new electoral system.

There could be complete stalemate, with me advocating a completely proportional system and you advocating FPTP.

But lets just say that we HAD to come to some agreement (it was in both our interests to do so). Lets say for argument sake we would both be shot if we didn’t agree.

(Which I imagine some who read this would probably like to see happen to either or both of us).

We would probably agree to some compromise electoral system somewhere half way between FPTP and complete PR, rather than be killed.

This compromise would wholely satisfy none of us, but both of us would have more satisfaction than losing completely, thereby we both have had a say in the outcome. This effectively is what PR is, just a thought. Like I say, no need to reply.

No, I am saying that it is better for 40% of people to be happy than 0%.

The reason you don’t try and justify FPTP is because you can’t.

I don’t need to justify it. It’s the current system. You need to justify changing it. You haven’t done.

I suspect that we are going round in circles, so once again, I will suggest that we end this thread. I’m not going to convince you, and you certainly aren’t going to convince me.

You don’t seriously believe this do you? So the 60% who voted for a tax rise would prefer a tax cut of 10% rather than the compromise 2% cut? Because that is what you are saying.

___And you’ll be waiting a long time. Firstly, I have never claimed that FPTP represents the majority better than PR, just that it represents the will of the largest plurality accurately.___

Except FPTP doesn’t necessarily even represent the largest plurality. What a pathetically floored system it is. I can show you plenty of examples where the majority are completely ignored in favour of a minority under FPTP, whereas you can’t show a single example of this happening under PR. That sounds like a pretty compelling reason for changing the status quo. The reason you don’t try and justify FPTP is because you can’t.

___Refined? As in ‘chosen in committee’, rather than by the electorate. Some refinement…___

How do you think current political parties come up with policy? It is chosen in commitee rooms with little say from even their own party members, let alone the electorate. The electorate choose the ‘closest’ to their views from this very imperfect choice of the few parties effectively available. At least under PR they get more choice and can have a bigger influence on policy by electing representatives more in tune with what they actually want.

You’ve still not grasped (probably deliberately) that when people vote for a party, it is NOT an absolute choice of everything they want. In many cases they are picking the ‘least worst option’. They might only agree with a few percent of their policies but it might be the only effective choice they are given. They know to vote for a party that represents their views better but has no chance of winning is a wasted vote. This is corrected under PR where every vote, for whatever party, counts. FPTP shuts out a wide range of voters from voting for what they want, that is why turnout falls so low under FPTP.

No, because taxes are a largely binary issue. Voters don’t generally care about the exact size of cuts or increases, only the principle – they either want tax cuts or tax rises. So a coalition producing a stalemate result would satisfy no-one. If taxes neither rise nor fall, no-one is happy. If taxes are slightly cut (to reflect A’s larger vote share), you make 60% of the people very unhappy, and 40% of them distinctly unsatisfied. It isn’t close to what anyone wants.

If I’ve chosen convenient inputs (as you suggest), it must be easy for you to give examples where FPTP represents the majority better than PR. Where are they? I’m still waiting.

And you’ll be waiting a long time. Firstly, I have never claimed that FPTP represents the majority better than PR, just that it represents the will of the largest plurality accurately. Secondly, I have already said your model is simplistic, naive and flawed. I’ll add to that list the fact that if you want to change the current system, you have to provide a compelling reason for change. So far, you have failed to do so. It is not for me to justify the current system, because if you are unable to put forward a case for change, the status quo remains.

All PR does is make this decision more refined and reflects majority opinion instead of having minority rule under FPTP.

Refined? As in ‘chosen in committee’, rather than by the electorate. Some refinement…

Isn’t it ridiculous to argue that because the majority voted for either a tax increase of 5% or a tax increase of 10% and didn’t specifically vote for a tax cut of 2%, they would prefer a tax cut of 10% instead? Obviously the tax cut of 2% is ‘closer’ to what they wanted and much better than what would happen under FPTP.

Anyway, where are your examples that disprove my model above? If I’ve chosen convenient inputs (as you suggest), it must be easy for you to give examples where FPTP represents the majority better than PR. Where are they? I’m still waiting.

But not Germany.

But even if A and C went into coalition it would still produce results closer to what the majority wanted.

No it wouldn’t. It would produce results that no-one wanted.

Change the inputs to whatever you think and you will get the same results. Go on, please have a go and prove me wrong if you can.