[EM] IRV vs. Plurality

[Alex Small]

IMHO, IRV is better than plurality.

Now, them's fighting words on this list.  Let me defend that statement:

1)  When there are only 2 strong candidates, IRV is clearly better than
plurality because it eliminates the spoiler effect.

2)  When there are 3 or more strong candidates, I fully admit that IRV has
problems.  Even though I have no doubt that there are other methods that
out-perform IRV in that case, IRV is still better than plurality.  IRV at
least allows voters more flexibility than plurality in such situations.

3)  When there are 3 or more strong candidates, IRV ensures that the
winner will defeat at least one candidate pairwise.  Plurality, on the
other hand, can elect somebody who loses all pairwise contests.

4)  I am a fan of PR (at least in some of its implementations), and I
believe that IRV will help in bringing about the implementation of some
form of PR (we can debate on this list which form of PR is most desirable,
of course).  Say that a third party starts consistently getting 20% of the
first-place votes.  That isn't enough to win in most 3-way elections, but
with a third strong option people will surely notice that there's
something wrong with single-member districts.  The problem with
single-member districts will become even more glaring if 3 parties each
get around 30% of the first-place votes.

With 2 parties, the problems tend to be less glaring.  Sure, we can all
come up with plenty of potential and real problems in gerrymandering.  But
if the majority party draws the districts, it will get a majority of the
seats.  So the problem isn't as glaring.

So I believe that IRV will be the beginning of the end for single-member
districts.  It might not eliminate SMD, but it will probably lead to at
least some members of our legislative bodies being elected by PR.  And
that is progress.  (I know, some people will jump all over me for not
saying that ANY use of SMD in a legislature is bad.  All I'm saying is
that progress is progress.)



Alex