[EM] Condorcet 2 - The Sequel ( the same people say the same things)

[Eric Gorr]

At 4:07 PM -0700 8/7/03, Alex Small wrote:
>At various points it has been brought up that Condorcet's virtual
>guarantee of centrist victory (when issues are arranged on a 1D axis) is a
>guarantee of monopoly.  I later observed that IRV would allow left and
>right to compete in a 1D world, but would almost guarantee the defeat of
>the center.  I do share some people's skepticism of centrist monopoly.
>It's one thing to elect the person who finds common ground between
>different points of view.  It's another thing to guarantee a single party
>a chokehold on power.  So I'm actually more sympathetic to IRV now, as
>long as the world remains 1D.

I don't think we are 1D.

It seems to me that we are a 2D world, but that the dominant voting 
system is suppressing it...for example, the Libertarian Party or the 
Green Party can give fairly good arguments in the second D, but they 
can never win largely because of the current voting system.

>However, as Adam points out, the goal should not be to defeat the centrist
>because he's the centrist.

But, what do you mean by centrist? If you mean the candidate that is 
able to obtain the broadest amount of support...well, I still fail to 
see the problem here. Why is compromise a bad thing?

If a party claims to be centrist, but really isn't, the voters can 
and do catch on to such things eventually by looking at actual voting 
records, etc.

If a party claims to be centrist and really is...again, what is the 
problem if they tend to win?

I have total faith in the individual voter to do the right thing. 
Unfortunately, they are not being given the option with the current 
voting system and that really wouldn't change under IRV either.

As such, someone asked if anyone would vote for IRV vs. 
Plurality...personally, I would vote against IRV in such a contest. I 
really don't see it as being much, if any better, then Plurality and 
it could easily sour the voting public on any "improvements" in the 
future...and that is how IRV would be promoted - as an improvement, 
when the reality is that it isn't a true improvement.