It turns that real live voters (including real live politicians) care a
lot about the later-no-harm criterion, even if they don't know what it's
called.
--Bob Richard
On 7/7/2011 3:43 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
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
--
Bob Richard
Executive Vice President
Californians for Electoral Reform
PO Box 235
Kentfield, CA 94914-0235
415-256-9393
http://www.cfer.org
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
