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.
I think there's that -- and the general confusion between ranked
balloting in general and IRV in particular. FV has kept the two linked
together, in effect giving a depiction of the sort: "Hey, don't you just
loathe spoilers? Wouldn't it be better if you could rank the candidates
so that there are no spoilers? Well, with IRV, you can!".
This seemed sensible enough at first glance, so IRV was accepted. It was
a dangerous move: it could get IRV into elections more quickly, but if
the voters found out that IRV provided bad results, they could turn
against ranked ballots in general.
Also, I think IRV's seemingly intuitive nature has something to do with
it. For those who *did* investigate more deeply, IRV seemed sensible,
too: instead of holding a bunch of expensive runoffs, collect all the
required information at once and then act as if there were runoffs. That
fails to account for the dynamics between the rounds, but that's a
subtle detail and might easily be missed.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
