4 ms·
> Which is also true of Australia [...] No, not really. If you look at Australia's parliament, you'll see that even though Labor and Liberal are the biggest pa
by esarbe 6y ago
> Which is also true of Australia [...]
No, not really. If you look at Australia's parliament, you'll see that even though Labor and Liberal are the biggest party, they 'only' make up 60% of the seats. That's not really good, but it's a far cry from Canada's 82% (or the US's 99%)
> I would suggest you look at the actual examples in the wild
That's a very good suggestion. I actually already did that and I can assure you not using FPTP results in much more and smaller parties.
Examples:
- Ireland (STV)
- Northern Ireland Assembly (STV)
- Papua New Guinea (IRV)
> The recent push for FPTP
Do you mean 'against FPTP'? Because I can assure you that I'm not pushing for FPTP at all.
- monocasa 6y ago> No, not really. If you look at Australia's parliament, you'll see that even though Labor and Liberal are the biggest party, they 'only' make up 60% of the seats. That's not really good, but it's a far cry from Canada's 82% (or the US's 99%) I'm not sure how you came to that. Australia has 151 MPs, 68 in the liberal party, and 61 in labor, or 86% in the two major parties. Their senate has 76 members, 31 liberal, 26 labor, or exactly 75% in the two major parties. > Do you mean 'against FPTP'? Because I can assure you that I'm not pushing for FPTP at all. Yes, I misspoke there, as is clear from the rest of my argument.