On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Jameson Quinn <[email protected]>wrote:
> JQ:You keep saying "I'm middlebrow, I think IRV would work OK, because the > parties would shift to wherever they had to be." You could use exactly the > same argument to support plurality. dlw:As a matter of fact, I believe that the US was capable of doing a lot of good things in its past, despite the fact that it primarily used plurality because of that exact fact. This is why I get most passionate about the use of a mix of multi-winner and single-winner elections than the specific sorts of options given voters. > Yet we know that under plurality, the two-party domination is such that > the parties get stuck and/or bought, and significant ideological segments > are unrepresented. dlw: It's more so like that when only plurality is used. All parties in power tend to get bought some and it's hard not to have some ideological segments unrepresented. > > JQ:And if it doesn't work the way you expect? A lot of effort, down the > drain; and the well is poisoned for the next reform. > dlw: It's going to work. Burlington was a temporary setback, facilitated by a lot of anti-electoral reform money and args from the detractors of IRV that got used improperly to reinstate FPTP. > > JQ:Personally, I have and woud again vote for IRV, if that's the only > choice. But if your goal is to convince all of us - or even one of us - to > start pitching IRV to our friends as the way forward... well, it just won't > happen. > dlw: I'm glad to hear it. In my country, because of how the system is set up currently and people's ignorance on the matter, there isn't scope for there to be a lot of choices for electoral reform. > > JQ:Where we can mostly agree is on something like the statement, which > excoriates plurality, and endorses 4 good systems, but also leaves the door > open to IRV. And getting even that much consensus, honestly, is a struggle. > dlw: I guess that's why electoral reform cannot proceed by consensus which is why I support FairVote, even though I believe that they are rhetorically over-committed to the importance of Rank-Choice-Voting (or Later No Harm). dlw > > > JQ > > 2011/11/3 David L Wetzell <[email protected]> > >> >>>>> >>>> dlw: Well, 1. IRV3 doesn't let folks rank all of the options and so it >>>> hopefully has more quality control on which options are ranked. >>>> 2. by not always giving us the "center", it does permit learning about >>>> the different viewpoints. Remember, since I'm middle-brow, I don't put as >>>> much significance on optimizing within the distribution of political >>>> opinion space. >>>> >>> >>> JQ:Balinski and Laraki studied a number of rules, and found that IRV and >>> Plurality elected an extremist almost 100% of the time; Condorcet and Range >>> elected a centrist almost 100%; and only Majority Judgment elected both >>> centrists and extremists with about equal balance. So "learning about the >>> different viewpoints does not favor IRV, but rather MJ. >>> >> dlw: But since I'm middle-brow, then I'm rather agnostic about >> "centrism". The political center is at best a useful fiction or something >> tautologically always present and always shifting. It isn't something that >> you can construct a political party around and keep from going stale. >> >>> >>> >>>> 3. It introduces some uncertainty in the circulation of the elites, >>>> which can give alternative viewpoints a chance to get a better hearing. >>>> When a new third party gains ground, it'll get a serious hearing and >>>> hopefully the de facto center will be moved. >>>> >>> >>> JQ:Again, this actually argues for MJ more than IRV. >>> >> dlw: What the potential for spoilers doesn't create uncertainty or give >> third parties some sway with the major parties? The main losers are the >> centrists, but with two dynamic shifting major parties, as I envision in my >> ideal-type democracy, why would we really need a centrist party? >> dlw >> >>> >>> JQ >>> >>>> >>>> dlw >>>> >>>> ---- >>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list >>>> info >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
