[EM] IRV vs. Plurality

[Bart Ingles]

Dgamble997 at aol.com wrote:
> 
> Bart Ingles wrote in part:
> 
> >On the question of IRV vs Plurality, I would like to first point out
> >that pure first-past-the-post is not really the norm for U.S.
> >elections. For nonpartisan local elections, the question should
> really
> >be IRV vs. Runoff. And for partisan state and federal elections, we
> >generally have primary and general elections, which are similar in
> >effect to runoffs.
> 
> A good system should be a good system anywhere in the world. The
> primary system is pretty much unique to the U.S. The results of
> elections in Britain where, until recently, every election at every
> level was a plurality, first-past-the-post election demonstrate how
> unfair and unrepresentative plurality is.

I didn't say the primary and Runoff systems were good, I just said they
were "similar in effect".  The point was that IRV would not be as big a
change as is often claimed.

The 2002 California gubernatorial election is an example.  If Davis,
Riordan, and Simon had competed using Runoff or IRV, the outcome would
likely have been the same, with the result that we are now involved in a
recall election for the non-Condorcet winner.


> For an example of a three party IRV election ( the Queensland state
> election of 1998 where Pauline Hanson's anti-immigrant One Nation
> Party challenged the Labour party and Liberal/National coalition )
> visit Adam Carr's Electoral Archive:
> 
> http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/states/qldindex.shtml

Sure, there are occasional 3-way elections, just as there are in the
U.S. (just search for "Jesse Ventura").

>
> 12 out of 76 members of the Australian Senate belong to parties other
> than National, Liberal or Labour.

That's my point-- PR in the Senate should, if anything, lend strength to
3rd party candidates in the House.  If IRV was conducive to electing
third-party and independent candidates, it would have been evident by
now.

Bart