That is easily done. FPTP doesn't even work well with two parties; our 1951 general election produced a Tory Government even though Labour polled more votes across the country.
Tim Moores wrote:. . . in the UK - it may be possible to win a seat with less than 30% of the votes. . . .
frosenberger wrote:I seem to remember learning once that you can find a situation for ANY voting system that is "unfair", but that, of course, depends on your definition of "fair".
Tim Moores wrote:As to that article, I would discount anything with a summary that is so highly biased that it drips with sarcasm.
Tim Holloway wrote:And the "official" reason for a lot of this was to prevent The Tyranny of the Majority from electing a corrupt, incompetent demagogue who would sway the ignorant masses into surrendering their essential rights and freedoms in exchange for comforting lies and bluster.
Tim Holloway wrote:So ranked voting appeals a lot to me when I can make my real preferences clear even if my candidate of choice probably won't win. This deal of hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils I find revolting. Especially after having the greater of both evils come through the primaries.
Tim Holloway wrote:But I'd be happy to abolish party primaries as a first step.
Tim Holloway wrote:Full Ranked choice carries its own perils.