Last I heard there is a strong chance that the IRV initiative will pass in Alaska today. I know that some people here feel very strongly that IRV is a horrible method, others (like myself) consider it to be flawed but an improvement on plurality, and a few consider it to be excellent. Since those differences have been hashed out and discussed ad nauseum it isn't worth commenting any further.
However, a few points to consider if it passes: 1) If IRV is worse than plurality then this will become apparent, and we will have real examples to back up criticisms (hypothetical examples, however powerful, will only go so far in policy debates). Although initially this will disillusion the public about alternative election methods, it will also present an opportunity for those who favor other methods. I recall that somebody on this list was at the Libertarian Convention and tried (without success) to amend the platform to say (paraphrased) "We call for the implimentation of instant proportional representation and instant runoff voting _or other single-winner election methods_. If our criticisms of IRV are born out by real examples we may have more success in the future. 2) Given the reluctance of the 2 parties to embrace ANY alternative voting method (the GOP in Alaska being an exception), if IRV passes in AK and people elsewhere demand a better election method, I doubt that the Republicrats will jump on the IRV bandwagon. They'll probably create committees in various states to "study the problem." Assuming that the committee isn't rigged one way or another (a dubious assumption, I know), this will be a chance for supporters of other methods to present testimony in a public forum. 3) _If_ IRV succeeds in electing a few members to the houses of the AK legislature, demands for Proportional Representation will likely follow. The reason is quite simple: When you have only two parties the single-member district system "seems" to work. There's gerrymandering, but in all likelihood the gerrymander was done by the party that's more popular in the state anyway. So, the legislature likely reflects the partisan balance in the state, more or less. (Note that closely divided states are an obvious exception.) With 3 or more parties, however, sampling individual districts is unlikely to accurately reflect the partisan situation of the state as a whole, regardless of the single-winner method used. A party favored by 20% of the electorate wins NO seats if the voters are evenly spread out. Nonetheless, methods that in one way or another allow voters to express more information than support for a single candidate (i.e. more info than plurality) provide enough data to detect the presence of that 20% faction. This will prompt calls for PR (I hope). 4) Even before IRV has (for good or for ill) weathered a few election cycles in AK, people in various places may be emboldened to place PR on the ballot in their states. A victory for IRV in AK will signal that a lot of voters want an alternative election method, and since PR is the next most popular reform out there it may gets its day. 5) Remember that most of the people who vote for IRV today have no knowledge of monotonicity, IIAC, and all of the other matters that we discuss. They sincerely believe that IRV is an excellent method. Those voters are our political allies (even if the chief IRV proponents are our technical adversaries). 6) Machines that allow ranked ballots can be adapted to Condorcet with ease. So, just a few silver linings. Hey, it's better than complaining. "Always look on the bright side of life...." Alex ---- For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
