On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 15:18:50 +0100 Raph Frank wrote:
On 10/9/08, Dave Ketchum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If there is a near tie among three or more, they often disagree but
usually get one of the leaders - matters little since the leaders were about
equally deserving.
This was part of my argument that Condorcet is better than IRV.
If Condorcet sees a cycle, A>B and B>C and C>A, we know that each got a
bunch of approval and we tear our hair awarding winner, while knowing that
other candidates are clear losers. If IRV awards a different winner among
these three it is nothing to get excited about (of course, we throw rocks
if IRV awards a win to what Condorcet sees as clear losers).
It matters because IRV reinforces the 2 party system.
A dangerous topic:
Plurality pretty clearly does - and we also have to contend with
those who like the 2 party system.
I claim Condorcet does not, for voters can rank multiple candidates,
having ability to vote for a 2 party candidate, especially when they expect
such will win, and others they wish to back.
But IRV uses the same ballot. I wonder whet might be different in
Australia.
Score does ratings instead of ranks - what would their excuse for
claiming superiority on this topic be?
it would be interesting to know what would be the effect of electing a
parliament by condorcet voting from single seat districts. It is
possible that it would also result in a 2 party system.
Election method can matter, but so can other environment details.
However, based on certain assumptions, IRV is 2 party reinforcing.
Also, Australia gives "experimental" evidence that IRV leads to a 2
party system.
Condorcet wouldn't necessarily, so that is a good reason to at least try it.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] people.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.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
