Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (4019)	4/21/2004 6:02:39 PM
From: 49thMIMOMander	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 37184

Thanks. 34% in a theorethical "third party" situation with 33-33-34% support, the 34% winner-takes-all. Gets worse with more parties involved Where does that "38% number" come from?? seems like something possible (skipping those who do not vote) Something often quoted?? Ilmarinen PS I like another number, the 7% of eligable voters who actually get the representation they voted for into the US congress. I think that was in one major region of Florida where there still was a lot of people actually voting. (skipping districts where only 7% vote) On the other hand, representation numbers like 70% are the norm in non-FPTP systems. (that is, 70% of voters get representation) On the third hand, one can have only candidate and elect only one and achieve a 100% representation number especially if voting is mandatory.