It seems to me that much of the discussion over "which method elects the best/worst/most mediocre candidate?" misses a larger problem:
In a system founded on the premise that the citizens control the government, the goal should be to present the voters with a broad range of choices in each election. OK, not so many that you get a 4-page ballot like San Francisco had last year (they voted on what type of coffee to allow, if I'm not mistaken), but enough so that it isn't just "same old vs. same old, with those other kooks that have no chance (aka Third Parties)". We know that plurality nurtures a two-party system. Although there are variations within the parties (the Dems are home to Joe Lieberman and Dennis Kucinich, while the GOP is home to John Ashcroft and Lincoln Chaffee), and although some argue that the two parties are indistinguishable on issues that matter (a subject to debate elsewhere) one thing is clear: In any given plurality election, it is almost certain that there are only two viable candidates, and while the viable candidates may differ from place to place, they are almost always from the same two parties, and each party strives to put aside differences and form a united front in the various legislative bodies (national, state, and local). Now, whether you worry about turkeys, Hitler-Stalin-Washington polarized scenarios, lukewarm Al Gore bland inoffensive candidates, or whatever, I hope we all agree that it would be better to have more options competing in the marketplace of ideas. How to take steps toward this? We know that proportional representation fosters multi-party systems. However, it is likely that single-winner election reform will precede the implementation of proportional representation. Supporters of each method say "Ours is the best for increasing competition in the marketplace of ideas." Let's evaluate them: IRV- IRV has failed to achieve significant multi-party competition in Australia. There's been some progress, but PR has done a much better job. I think it is reasonable to ask whether other methods can do better, because IRV has proven to be a modest improvement but nothing to crow about. Approval- Approval is largely untested in the real world. At best, it will lead us to a Utopia of multi-party competition. More likely, it will lead to a moderate level of competition, hopefully a little better than what IRV has given Australia. At worst, we'll still have a duopoly, sans spoilers (in the sense of people with 2% support tipping elections one way or the other). Moreover, Approval is cheaper than IRV in terms of voting equipment. Approval is therefore worth trying in public elections, preferably partisan elections and primaries rather than non-partisan local elections. Condorcet- Condorcet is largely untested in the real world. The prospects are probably the same as Approval, but Condorcet is more expensive and complicated. Condorcet should therefore not be seriously considered for public elections right now. Borda- Don't even go there ;) So, if your goal is competition rather than "filtering out the turkeys/polarizers/etc." then the basic question is "Can we do better than IRV?" Approval is an excellent method for examining that question, and the question is worth asking in light of IRV's under-performance in regards to competition. It could be that PR is the only way to really get multi-party competition going, but that's another topic. Anyway, just my $0.02 worth. Alex ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
