[EM] IRV's "majority winner". What if we let the people choose?

[James Gilmour]

Adam
Thanks for your helpful comments.

> I think that such a vote could be "marketed" in a way that 
> would make it relatively uncontroversial.  "In cases with no first-place 
> majority winner, 
> Condorcet chooses the compromise candidate with the broadest base of 
> support."

Maybe, but I remain VERY sceptical.  I would still expect public rejection of any voting system that
elected a compromise candidate who had very low first-vote support.  I suspect the fact that IRV
operates the opposite way is one of its appeals and reasons for its intuitive acceptance for public
elections.


> >Again, this response is not operating on the same dimension 
> as that used to assess representativity.  Other values in the total 
> system of values come into play and determine the response.
> 
> I'm sorry, but this choice of words still makes my head spin, 
> even now that  I know what you mean by it. :)

What I was trying to say takes us in realms that are not usually explored here, because I suspect
many members are either not aware of the existence of these "other dimensions" in the world of real
politics or else are aware of them but do not want admit them to the discussion.  I don't know how
to express this other than as "other dimensions" in the system of values.  I have no problem with
concepts like "n-dimensional space" and I have become increasingly aware that practical debates
about changing voting systems operate along many different dimensions.  The dimension that dominates
the discussion on this list is but one of the dimensions operating in the wider field of public
politics.  The "acceptable" outcomes along different dimensions are sometimes mutually incompatible.
And electors attach different weights to the different dimensions.  So we should not be surprised to
find that systems intellectually accepted by the electors are rejected by the "gut reaction" of
those same electors when they see a particular outcome.

James