On 06/25/2013 12:25 AM, David L Wetzell wrote:
KM:Alright, then tell me what kind of evidence would change your mind as
to whether the scarcity of competitive candidates is an artifact of
Plurality or inherent to single-winner elections. (If no such evidence
can exist, then there's no point in discussing.)
dlw:Let's switch to IRV + American forms of PR(in more local elections)
and watch the feedback loop. We should be able to observe over time
how the dynamics of elections shift, as voter-prefs get better
cultivated. When folks get habituated to the new system then it'd be
easy to put multiple alts to IRV on various ballots, using IRV to choose
between them, and then we'd see from various experiments whether
upgrading from IRV continues a feedback loop in improving the quantity
as well as quality of competitive candidates on the ballot.
So you're saying that nothing short of actually trying the experiment in
public elections will change your mind? Then I believe I am done here. I
can't change your position, so all I can do is to argue to others that
your position is flawed.
Though, on another level, I could argue that IRV itself has already been
tested in the US. Yes, I'm going to use the B-word. But you have already
made it clear enough that you consider Burlington to be an anomaly:
therefore, it appears only widespread center-squeezing will be enough to
show the inferiority of IRV.
If anything, I'm reminded of a right-populist party over here. Their
policies have been criticized many times. One of their replies is
simply: "we've never been in power, so you don't know that it would turn
out that bad".
KM:And furthermore, tell me why we shouldn't just use what you call
"multi-winner elections" like runoffs and not have to take on faith that
no single-winner method can produce diversity.
dlw: We need both diversity and hierarchy. This is why we need a mix of
election rules, some encouraging diversity/equality, others encouraging
hierarchy/order. We need the latter because of the need for collective
action and coordination.
So long as there are parties, there will always be hierarchy. Fred
Gohlke argues pretty well for this. He does that because he thinks party
hierarchy is a bad thing. I'm not going to comment on whether it is,
here, because it is besides the point. Instead, I'll only say: Why?
There are nations that only use what you call multi-winner rules. There
are even nations on the American continent that do so. Yet they manage.
Their lack of what you call single-winner elections for partisan
positions do not seem to measurably harm them in comparison with similar
nations that do use such election rules.
I classify multiple stage elections as hybrids between multi-winner and
single-winner elections. I think they're costly but good systems. If
we replaced all of our current fptp systems with a partisan primary in
the US with the FairVote upgrade on top two primary, it'd improve the
system. But I'd rather not use one election rule for all elections. I
think it'd be hard to get turnout up and fair in the first election,
even with four winners.
If Abd is right, then low turnout is a feature, not a bug.
And what do you mean by "and fair in the first election"?
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
