There is a fundamental difference between two-party dominance, which will probably not change any time soon, and a two-party duopoly. 45%, 40%, 8%, 5%... is dominance; 51% 47% 1%... is duopoly. Any system which gives bad enough results when there are more than two parties will be a two party duopoly; and it seems highly possible that that includes IRV. And I think that many of the current problems, including the outsized power of "$peech", are inevitable consequences of a monopoly.
David, you believe differently. But your guesses about how things would work are just that. You can't point to a real-world example. And so, as you've essentially admitted, we're not likely to believe you until you do have evidence. Nor, in my opinion, should we. In other words: You could be right. So stop arguing about this and go out there and prove it. Jameson 2011/12/2 David L Wetzell <[email protected]> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: MIKE OSSIPOFF <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 19:19:28 +0000 > Subject: [EM] IRV's adequacy depends on a two-party system > > > David Wetzel said: > > s for center-squeezing, that's not really a problem in the US as a > > > whole... > Third parties are too small and scattered. > > [endquote] > > MO: Ok, so David is saying that IRV is adequate adequate only in a two-party > system. > > dlw: David is saying, > > > Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change [two-party > dominated system in US] > > and the courage to change the things I can change [rallying support of others > around American forms of PR + IRV] > > and the wisdom to tell the difference between a dysfunctional two-party > system and one that would "work". > > > 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
