I actually already touched this question in another mail. And the argument was that (in two-party countries) IRV is not as risky risky from the two leading parties' point of view as methods that are more "compromise candidate oriented" (instead of being "first preference oriented"). I think that is one reason, but it is hard to estimate how important.
Juho On 7.7.2011, at 23.56, Jameson Quinn wrote: > Russ's message about simplicity is well-taken. But the most successful voting > reform is IRV - which is far from being the simplest reform. Why has IRV been > successful? > > I want to leave this as an open question for others before I try to answer it > myself. The one answer which wouldn't be useful would be "Because CVD (now > FairVote) was looking for a single-winner version of STV". There's a bit of > truth there, but it's a long way from the whole truth, and we want to find > lessons we can learn from moving forward, not useless historical accidents. > > JQ > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
