In article , 
T.C.Roll-Pickering@qmul.ac.uk (Tim Roll-Pickering) wrote:

> rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:
> 
> >> >> Well the Greens and Sinn Fein haven't exactly been doing well
> >> >> lately but both parties have by and large made limited
> >> >> breakthroughs because of concentrated vote bases and personalities
> >> >> who built up a support base. Would you care to nominate potential
> >> >> STV constituencies in the UK where smaller parties would likely
> >> >> win seats?
> 
> >> > Come now! Brighton and Hove for starters.
> 
> >> That's a starter for the Greens but what about UKIP and the BNP?
> >> (On the London Assembly results the BNP would be struggling in a
> >> City & East 6 member STV seat, especially if the General Election
> >> brings higher turnout.)
> 
> > If a small minority can't gather enough or wider support to win 
> > such a
> > seat, why should they be represented in an assembly? It is about
> > governance not simple arithmetic, after all.
> 
> If they have enough support but geographically dispersed then the 
> logic of the PR arguments is that they should be represented and 
> not denied because of the location of boundaries or concentration. 

I see you ignore the ability of parties to attract support from other 
parties' supporters. As forming combinations of parties in government is 
part of the purpose of elections, that seems a desirable attribute in 
itself.

-- 
Cllr. Colin Rosenstiel
Cambridge                    http://www.rosenstiel.co.uk/
Cambridge Liberal Democrats: http://www.cambridgelibdems.org.uk/

rosenstiel@cix.compulink.co.uk wrote:

>> If they have enough support but geographically dispersed then the
>> logic of the PR arguments is that they should be represented and
>> not denied because of the location of boundaries or concentration.

> I see you ignore the ability of parties to attract support from other
> parties' supporters.

Well in the particular case of the BNP they not the most transfer friendly 
of parties, even on the far right.

> As forming combinations of parties in government is
> part of the purpose of elections, that seems a desirable attribute in
> itself.

No the purpose of elections is choosing those who are to govern us. Forming 
combinations of parties in government hasn't been a part of British 
elections for a long time.

That said arguing the merits of coalition governments might be a better way 
to go for the PR lobby than trying to exploit outrage about statistics. 
Would it be too bad to try the slogan "One Party Government? No thanks!"