On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.qu...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 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. duopoly you mean? > > 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. > I can offer the history of the US prior to the past 40 years as evidence that a 2-party duopolized system can work. It is not a coincidence that from 1870-1980 that in one of the economically most important states of the US, IL, the competition between the two major parties was handicapped by the use of 3-seat quasi-PR state rep election rule. This enabled other states who were economically more dependent on IL to be politically independent of IL. They experimented and a lot of those experiments spilled over to foster critical changes in the rest of the USA. All of this while FPTP was still being used... So why do you claim I don't have evidence? The US doesn't need an EU-system to reinvigorate its democracy. It needs to draw from its own history and to trust that local activism will have a trickle-up effect on national and international outcomes. > > In other words: You could be right. So stop arguing about this and go out > there and prove it. > will do. dlw > > Jameson > > 2011/12/2 David L Wetzell <wetze...@gmail.com> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkk...@hotmail.com> >> To: <election-meth...@electorama.com> >> 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