On Jul 7, 2011, at 7:40 PM, Bob Richard wrote:
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.
They need to learn that Condorcet offers less painful response than
what IRV is offering.
Dave Ketchum
--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
--
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
