I wonder if the only reason IRV has more apparent
backing than approval or Condorcet is because it would
permit our present politicians to be elected even more
easily. Approval and Condorcet would permit
compromise candidates to emerge and be elected. All
IRV will do is to keep third party candidates from
affecting the election. If you were a Republican or
Democrat politician, what's not to like about IRV? Whereas, the adoption of approval or Condorcet might
terminate your career.
The above makes no sense, for IRV and Condorcet use identical ballots and, most of the time, award identical winners. That is:
Both get rid of Plurality's spoiler problem, which should be attractive to politicians.
Both thus encourage voting for third party compromise candidates, which could make successful politicians nervous.
IRV has VOCAL backers, who thus purchase apparent approval.
Those of us who promote Condorcet note that, while IRV protects against Plurality's spoiler problem, it has a spoiler problem of its own when third party candidates get significant votes.
While Approval beats Plurality, it restricts voter expressions of their likely desires.
Maybe I'm pessimistic, but I think there's no real interest in improving on Plurality. If you write to legislators about IRV's defects, you might persuade them the opposite way. They might see that IRV would make their jobs safer.
???
Stepjak
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026 Do to no one what you would not want done to you. If you want peace, work for justice.
----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
