What kind of evidence would convince you to change your mind about IRV? How about on IRV3/AV3 resolving most of IRV's problems? (I believe that using 3-slot+unapproved ballots and implicit approval to run approval/runoff, which I guess in your notation is IRV3/AV2, would, but don't agree that IRV3/AV3 would).
Obviously, if your belief in IRV being good enough weren't falsifiable, it would be just faith. I'm sure that's not the case. Jameson 2011/11/22 David L Wetzell <wetze...@gmail.com> > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.qu...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> >> 2011/11/22 David L Wetzell <wetze...@gmail.com> >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Jameson Quinn >>> <jameson.qu...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2011/11/22 David L Wetzell <wetze...@gmail.com> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Jameson Quinn < >>>>> jameson.qu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2011/11/22 David L Wetzell <wetze...@gmail.com> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Aye, and that still looks better than a two-stage with a 40% >>>>>>> cutoff(what's in place now) or FPTP. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> If they had stuck with IRV in Burlington, the perceived flaws would >>>>>>> have worked themselves out. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> How? By people returning to lesser-evil voting, but possibly between >>>>>> progressives and democrats? That's not a solution in my book. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The two major-party equilibrium would be centered around the de facto >>>>> center. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So you're happy with the Democrat/Republican choice? >>>> >>> >>> No, I believe it's alright to have two major parties so long as the >>> duopoly is contested >>> >> >> How would a post-Kiss Burlington duopoly be contested? >> > > dlw: IDK and I don't need to know. The ways new parties can be created or > old parties readjusted are too many. > >> >> >>> and both major parties must regularly reposition themselves around the >>> de facto center, >>> >> >> That only works for issues that make it onto the agenda; and it works as >> well for D/R on a national scale as it would for D/P on a Burlington scale. >> (Yes, D/P would be a better local fit for Burlington than D/R; but not >> better than D/R is nationally.) >> > > dlw: More such issues wd make it onto the agenda more often if P's cd be > among the top 2 in "more local" elections at the nationwide level. > >> >> To my view, this is unacceptably bad. >> > > dlw: You're failing to take into account how much of the dysfunctional > behavior of the Ds and Rs is due to their mutual conflicting desire to get > permanent majorities over the other. If you take this possibility away, > you change their incentives to make cooperating more useful. > > Both major parties can be reincarnated from their current states. > Once, we start balancing our use of single-winner and multi-winner > elections, things'll start changing more often and we won't get stuck in a > rut like the US has been for 40 so years due to cultural wars wedge > issues(easier to reframe effectively when third party outsiders are given > more voice) and the increased agressiveness of $peech (which is easy when > there are so few competitive elections and third parties are not given a > constructive role by the use of FPTP for almost all elections) and low > voter turnout (also known to be increased by PR, it's not known whether > alts to IRV will have a comparable effect). > > dlw >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info