[EM] Might IRV adoption be inevitable?

[Markus Schulze]

Dear James,

Venzke Kevin wrote (25 Feb 2003):
> I wonder if the only reason IRV has more apparent
> backing than approval or Condorcet is because it would
> permit our present politicians to be elected even more
> easily.

I replied (26 Feb 2003):
> I guess that the main reason why so many people support IRV
> is that these people consider IRV to be the first step to
> proportional representation by the single transferable vote.
> And in so far as there is no known version of proportional
> representation by the single transferable vote that has been
> proven to meet monotonicity, I guess that many activists
> see no point in insisting that the promoted preferential
> single-winner method should meet monotonicity.

You replied (1 March 2003):
> I don't think there any necessary connection between promoting
> IRV and promoting PR by STV. (...) Most who argue for IRV in
> public elections here, do so as a means of preventing any move
> towards PR.

Is this statement only valid for IRV supporters? Or do you think
that also Approval Voting supporters and Condorcet supporters
rather hurt than help the move towards PR-STV? In your opinion,
which single-winner method should those people who want
to promote PR-STV for parliamentary elections promote for
single-winner elections when they don't want their effort
for better single-winner elections to hurt their effort for
the introduction of PR-STV?

******

You wrote (1 March 2003):
> We have very few directly elected single-office public elections
> in the UK. However, when advocates of STV-PR are asked about such
> elections, they usually recommend IRV (despite all its defects).

Which election method do you recommend for directly elected
single-office public elections?

Markus Schulze

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