[EM] Nov. 2002 Libertarian Solutions and IRV

[Alex Small]

Dave Ketchum said:
>> 1)  Runoff methods (of which IRV and 2-step are the most common)
>> aren't nearly as effective as PR for promoting multi-party
>> competition. Australia and Louisiana come to mind.  Although Louisiana
>> uses 2-step runoff for state-wide races, when there are only 3
>> candidates with significant support 2-step is roughly equivalent to
>> IRV.  I haven't seen many 3rd-party governors or Senators in that
>> state.
...
> I do not see 3 candidates as a worthy special case:


I just mean that Louisiana is currently using a method that is equivalent
to IRV in many cases.  Despite this fact, Louisiana isn't exactly a
hot-bed of third-party activity.  This is negative evidence against the
notion that IRV will promote multi-party democracy.  Of course, a single
case isn't conclusive, but it can be put in a larger context.


>> 4)  Just as the party has left open a variety of PR options, the party
>
>> should leave open a variety of single-winner options.  Let there be a
>> debate in the marketplace of ideas.
>
>
> We seem agreed that there are a variety of PR options of more or less
> equal value.
>
> Seems like enough is known about single-winner options to reject the
> worst, such as plurality.

The point is that in multi-winner races the LP has just endorsed PR
without specifying a method.  With single-winner races the LP has endorsed
a specific method (IRV) without hearing the case for other methods
(approval, Condorcet, etc.).  A party that believes in a competitive
marketplace of ideas shouldn't settle on a single method until more debate
has occured witin the party.



Alex


----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em