Dear James, Venzke Kevin wrote (25 Feb 2003): > 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.
I replied (26 Feb 2003): > I guess that the main reason why so many people support IRV > is that these people consider IRV to be the first step to > proportional representation by the single transferable vote. > And in so far as there is no known version of proportional > representation by the single transferable vote that has been > proven to meet monotonicity, I guess that many activists > see no point in insisting that the promoted preferential > single-winner method should meet monotonicity. You replied (1 March 2003): > I don't think there any necessary connection between promoting > IRV and promoting PR by STV. (...) Most who argue for IRV in > public elections here, do so as a means of preventing any move > towards PR. Is this statement only valid for IRV supporters? Or do you think that also Approval Voting supporters and Condorcet supporters rather hurt than help the move towards PR-STV? In your opinion, which single-winner method should those people who want to promote PR-STV for parliamentary elections promote for single-winner elections when they don't want their effort for better single-winner elections to hurt their effort for the introduction of PR-STV? ****** You wrote (1 March 2003): > We have very few directly elected single-office public elections > in the UK. However, when advocates of STV-PR are asked about such > elections, they usually recommend IRV (despite all its defects). Which election method do you recommend for directly elected single-office public elections? Markus Schulze ---- For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
