> > > dlw: I agree with JQ's approach of realism that presumes that LNH or the > > Weak Cournot Winner problem matters because it is important to take into > account the fears of incumbents when pushing electoral reform. > > [endquote] > > ...so Dave is pushing for something that current incumbants will like because > it > > will keep on electing the same two odious parties, as lesser-evils, at > Myerson-Weber equilibrium. > > dlw: nope, I'm pushing for a package that'll result in there tending to be two rather different major parties held accountable by an indefinite no. of minor parties and a lot of LTPs. I believe that the problem isn't the tendency for there to be 2 major parties, but rather the tendency for there to be only one major party and a stagnant center.
> > Dave says: > > As for your dumb and dumber characterization, this gets at my arg that > > lowering the Pirv > > After Burlington, Pirv(federal) = 0. > > Once again, that is what is in dispute. The evidence does not show that. > > > ...doesn't raise the Poth > > [endquote] > > If IRV continues to embarrass electoral reform, then P(anything) will > approach zero. > That's why serious advocates of electoral reform must distance themselves > from IRV, > > FairVote, and Richie. > > Or follow RBJ in ignoring you... > > Dave says: > > ...because there is no unity over > which election rule would take the place of IRV3 as the de facto leader by > virtue of its P if not it's X. > > [endquote] > > > Can we guess that Dave is using "X" to stand for "merit"? > > No, it's a fuzzy notion, a lot more fuzzy than P, at least in the short-term. > > Most people wouldn't propose something more complicated than Approval unless > it's > better than Approval. > > The opportunities for some to game an Approval Vote makes it not a good election reform, at least in the near-future for most political elections. > > IRV is the "de facto leader", in terms of local enactments, due to heavy > promotion > > by means of someone's personal wealth. It's rather like buying your son's way > into > a prestigious university, and then buying him a degree there. > > Most People are happy with IRV in MN, except for those who really liked gaming FPTP. Lots of people have worked hard to reach US_Americans stuck thinking of FPTP as the only election rule. And since our system uses FPTP, it's been necessary to simplify the presentation of alternatives to FPTP. IRV is not a bad rule, whether it's the best rule is irrelevant, it's best positioned to replace FPTP as the main single-winner election rule and trying to replace it with umpteen alternatives is only going to distract us from what is far more important: rallying around American forms of PR. > > There's no unity about which method we like best, but there is a strong > consensus > that Approval is pretty good, and it's the obvious, natural proposal due to > its > > simplicity and its minimal change from Plurality. > > There is no consensus on alternatives to IRV as the main alternative to FPTP (or a two-round or a top-two primary approach). Thus, we could spend our time/energy trying to get a consensus or we could be pragmatic and trust that with the adoption of American forms of PR+IRV that there'd be more scope for considering additional options/reforms later. no time for the rest. dlw
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
