Thande
Donor
In Britain prior to the Great Reform Act, some parliamentary seats (especially county seats) elected two rather than one MPs. The second seat was simply awarded to the runner-up in the election. The only other case I recall this applying was in the early USA, where the vice-presidency was originally given to the runner-up in the presidential election rather than a president running with a VP team-mate.
I'm wondering what a country would look like if a "FASPTP" system like this was formalised and institutionalised. Halve the number of constituencies by merging them, and then put both the candidates winning the first and second highest number of votes into parliament.
This would be particularly interesting because when the practice was used in Britain, it was before formalised political parties (Whig and Tory being as much a tribal identity as anything). As such, it was often the case that parties would not stick to a single candidate - say, six people would run in a constituency competing for two seats, 3 saying they were Whigs and 3 Tories, but it would be decided chiefly by personality (and connections, of course). Now things would change if we're talking a more modern setting with more organised parties and universal suffrage. Parties would probably stick to a single candidate per constituency, unless it's an ultrasafe seat in which case they might risk splitting the vote by running two candidates to try and pick up both seats.
Possible disadvantage:
If a country already has a very strong two-party system, like the USA, then pretty much every set of two seat will be held either by the Republican winner and Democratic runner-up or vice-versa, forming a situation where Congress is almost statically 50-50 Democratic:Republican. This would either deadlock things constantly or lead to formalised power-sharing 'one-party state', either of which is bad.
Possible advantage:
Stops parties in a three or more party (FPTP-type) system from saying "Vote for us in party 1 - you may like party 2 but if you vote for them they'll split the vote and then party 3 will get in, and none of us want that!" So parties like the Liberal Democrats in modern Britain would have a better chance of picking up seats. Also makes it easier for Independents, who often get as far as second place but can't quite overturn the core vote.
Thoughts? I think I'll run the numbers from the last British election and see what comes out as a (very flawed) test study.
I'm wondering what a country would look like if a "FASPTP" system like this was formalised and institutionalised. Halve the number of constituencies by merging them, and then put both the candidates winning the first and second highest number of votes into parliament.
This would be particularly interesting because when the practice was used in Britain, it was before formalised political parties (Whig and Tory being as much a tribal identity as anything). As such, it was often the case that parties would not stick to a single candidate - say, six people would run in a constituency competing for two seats, 3 saying they were Whigs and 3 Tories, but it would be decided chiefly by personality (and connections, of course). Now things would change if we're talking a more modern setting with more organised parties and universal suffrage. Parties would probably stick to a single candidate per constituency, unless it's an ultrasafe seat in which case they might risk splitting the vote by running two candidates to try and pick up both seats.
Possible disadvantage:
If a country already has a very strong two-party system, like the USA, then pretty much every set of two seat will be held either by the Republican winner and Democratic runner-up or vice-versa, forming a situation where Congress is almost statically 50-50 Democratic:Republican. This would either deadlock things constantly or lead to formalised power-sharing 'one-party state', either of which is bad.
Possible advantage:
Stops parties in a three or more party (FPTP-type) system from saying "Vote for us in party 1 - you may like party 2 but if you vote for them they'll split the vote and then party 3 will get in, and none of us want that!" So parties like the Liberal Democrats in modern Britain would have a better chance of picking up seats. Also makes it easier for Independents, who often get as far as second place but can't quite overturn the core vote.
Thoughts? I think I'll run the numbers from the last British election and see what comes out as a (very flawed) test study.