On 05/29/2013 08:06 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
My apologies. I'm not always good w. names.
I had a really long reply queued up here, but now that I've got a few
days to think since RL business has not been quite as hectic, I think
there's one thing we need to establish before we continue discussion.
The one thing that I felt was most of a discussion-stopper the last time
we talked was how you'd reply to almost all evidence I gave you by "oh,
but it's different in the United States". So, therefore, before I start
spending lots of time on making counter-arguments and backing them up, I
think I'll have to know: what kind of evidence will you accept? That
way, my work won't be in vain.
Can you accept US polls done with advanced methods? Can you accept
results from organizations using advanced methods? Can you accept
multipartyism in the past in areas of the US as strengthening the
argument that multipartyism can happen in the present? Can you accept
results from areas with runoff, again suggesting greater diversity? Can
you accept results from other presidential FPTP nations suggesting the
extreme expense of US elections is an anomaly?
And finally, can you accept results from the other IRV-using nations?
There are not many of them, so it's very easy to "this place is
different" them away. To me, the repeated use of that response just
feels rude: like you've constructed a self-consistent system that
explains little but is impervious to counters, wherever they may come from.
In short, what will it take to change your mind?
(What would it take to change mine? Some evidence that the US really is
that special, perhaps. But it's hard to see how one could show that. So,
of course, if you think I'm pulling the same rude trick, you can also
say that and stop the thread there.)
There is one thing I *can* reply to, however.
I could also then point at other nations, either other
presidential countries making use of runoff (to strengthen the
first claim), or other presidential countries in general, even
thoseunder Plurality (to
strengthen the second), and say that the expense of presidential
elections in the US is pretty much unequaled elsewhere in the world.
That is, I think it is, but I'm not going to investigate in detail
unless I know you won't pull the "it's different in the US than in every
one of those other countries" response.
dlw: I'm not sure I'm tracking which are your two different claims.
Claim 1: Plurality leads to really expensive campaigns.
Claim 2: Plurality + US political dynamics lead to really expensive
campaigns.
As you know, I believe runoff elections are not pure single-winner
elections, since the first stage is a multi-winner election. And so some
of our diffs come from a different taxonomy for election rules.
Why does that matter? If runoffs can be used to elect single
candidates[1], and the method produces diversity, what does it matter
whether it's a "multi-winner" or a "single-winner" method? It does what
we want -- or it's better at it than IRV, anyway.
If I'm looking for a flier, I shouldn't care whether it flaps its wings
like a bird or has fixed wings like a plane. If it's a good flier for
the conditions I need, that's enough.
And if it is indeed better than IRV, which I think I can show if the
evidence isn't "it's different"-ed away, then FairVote is doing a great
disservice when it's pushing to replace runoff with IRV. If the
organization was primarily pushing to replace Plurality with IRV, then
you *could* reason that "well, at least 2.5-party rule is better than
2-party rule"[2]. But if IRV is being touted as "Instant" "Runoff" to
replace delayed runoff, and this leads to a reduction in the diversity,
then it's a loss that pushes the country *towards* Duvergerian outcomes,
not away from it. Abd has more data about this, if you're interested.
If your contention is that runoff's performance can't be generalized to
advanced methods, fine enough. Let's consider whether there's any way to
find out if that claim is true... and in the meantime, let's not replace
runoffs with IRV.
//
[1] I.e. it can be used to elect presidents, governors, etc., as opposed
to being a PR method that elects a bunch of members of parliament (etc.)
all at once.
[2] Or, more precisely "well, at least 'slight departure from
Duvergerian oligopoly' is better than being stuck at Duvergerian
oligopoly'". 2.5-party rule and 2-party rule are just short ways of
saying the same, since while it does not need to correspond to only
having two parties, that's how it usually goes. I imagine you could have
diversity with physical 2-party rule, but you'd need a whole lot more
oversight to keep the two parties from conspiring or becoming corrupt.
Kind of like how you might be able to have a planned economy that
produces good results, but you'd need heavier checks and balances to
keep the SoEs from colluding or becoming corrupt than if you just had a
bunch of competitive companies doing the same.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
