James Gilmour wrote:
Kristofer Munsterhjelm > Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 5:41 PM
If IRV does elect the true Condorcet winner in all realistic
elections (as opposed to the CW according to strategic ballots),
and the Australian two-party (two and a third?) dominance arises
from IRV, then that means that any Condorcet single-round single
winner method will lead to two party dominance. That would be
unfortunate. Of course, if it is the truth, no matter how
unfortunate it is, it'll still be the truth; and in that case we
should focus on multiwinner elections and PR instead.
Whether or not Condorcet single-round single-winner elections have
the effect suggested, all assemblies (city councils, state and
federal legislatures, parliaments) should be elected by multi-winner
PR voting systems. That is the only way to ensure that these
"representative" bodies are truly representative of those who voted
in the respective elections.
I had always assumed this list was focused so strongly on
single-winner voting systems because there are so many important
single-office (hence single-winner) elections in the USA.
It suggests more than this. If all Condorcet single-round single-winner
methods strengthen the duopoly, then the important single-winner
elections should either be made multiple-round (that is, have runoffs),
or be subordinated to the multiwinner method by some analog of
parliamentarism.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
