2011/11/3 David L Wetzell <[email protected]> > > >>> Or the Progs and Dems could realize, hey, maybe we can become the two >>> dominant parties here by not doing that sort of thing... >>> >> >> Not a motivation for the Dems, who already are. >> > > Most Dems, possibly not their leaders, >
A very important qualification. In fact, I'd say it's more important than the main clause. > would prefer to have the other major party be Progs than the current Pub > party. This would make the center tilt to the left economically, rather > than to the right. > >> >>>> If you're about to argue that Dem voters wouldn't do that and risk >>>> electing a Republican... remember that that same argument would refute any >>>> importance at all for the LNH criterion. It may be correct that LNH doesn't >>>> matter - but that's not how FairVote thinks. >>>> >>> >>> I don't know how FairVote thinks. I think they have a product and they >>> market it differently towards different audiences. To electoral egg-heads, >>> they've pitched LNH as important. Whether or not 100% LNH is really a hill >>> they'd be willing to die on is an open question, IMO. >>> >> >> Well, clearly not, because they've explicitly said that Condorcet's LNH >> failures are somehow less problematic than Bucklin's. Makes no sense at >> all... but even as such, it shows that they're willing to talk nonsense if >> it suits them, which is not a die-on-the-hill attitude. >> > > I think more down-to-earth practical considerations matter a lot more than > Condorcet winners or LNH or what-not. In the end, democracy is a function > of habits and rules and the habits matter a lot more than the rules, albeit > changes in habits can and do lead to changes in rules. > And vice versa! > > As I've learned from Rob Richie, IRV(when all options are ranked) tends to > produce the Condorcet winner most of the time. The long and short is that > it already is the winner in US electoral reform among alternatives to FPTP > because of its first-mover and marketing advantages. This list is unlikely > to change that. > FPTP tends to produce the CW most of the time, too. But it's still a horrible system even when it does give the CW, because it always stifles debate and participation. >> >>> >>> I think I trust that in a system that uses a mix of single-winner and PR >>> rules that the competition between the top two parties will be less >>> cut-throat and subject to such a low-blow as clone-spawning. >>> But the real issue here is the future attitude of FairVote to IRV3/AV3 >>> and I'm prone to be optimistic on account of the practical value from >>> getting the vote-counting done faster... >>> >> >> Well, you'd also have to worry about the following: >> 1. People support using IRV3/AV2 (As Kathy Dopp already did in another >> thread) >> 2. They successfully (and correctly) argue that that's better than >> IRV3/AV3 for honest results. >> 3. Then you'd have a serious LNH problem, and all of FairVote's LNH >> arguments apply pretty much directly. >> > > dlw: I'd label Dopp's preferred method as IRV2/AV3, which really isn't > IRV. IRV works rather well with 3 candidates. It just doesn't sustain a > competitive 3-way political system. The system will still tend to readjust > so we continue to have two dominant parties. It'll likely be two different > dominant parties and that's okay. > > For if you believe something is right then you're willing to be > self-sacrificial for it. And it shouldn't matter so much that you get "the > right people" into power. If those who are in power must accommodate you > to remain in power from henceforth then that's enough. This is the > politics of Gandhi, as I see it. It makes me less perfectionistic about > electoral reofrm. > Have you looked at SODA yet? I understand you being pragmatic about IRV. But you should still sign the statement (you can do it just by saying so here on the list.) Jameson > > dlw > >> >> JQ >> > >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
