[EM] Fwd: IRV splits majorities to empower everyone, & find common ground
states at 4irv.com
Thu Nov 17 13:54:32 PST 2005
The thing you have to understand about IRV is that it is not easy
to exclude voters unless they want to be excluded. You get 3 chances
to pick a winner. (in SF) If you cannot find any candidate that the
other voters can agree on, you are probably too far out there to
deserve a strong voice in public policy.
If you care to be honest about how real-life politics works, it is
not possible to have a dominant majority using IRV. If one
group/issue has more support than the others, let's say 40-60%+
support, then realistically more than one candidate will focus on
that majority group and split the 1st choice vote. This is the
effect of spoiler-proof multi-candidate elections: No one can count
on a safe majority. It raises the bar by allowing 2nd choices/more
voters to be counted.
Out of all the candidates that split the 1st-choice majority using
IRV, the one who reaches out to the most minority voters for 2nd/3rd
choices will win. Allowing all voters 3 chances means that any voter-
group, no matter how small, can swing the election. IRV makes all
voters equal, whereas single-choice ballots give the majority group
an overwhelming advantage and minority groups are usually just
footnotes. (Popular incumbents can expect 1st round majorities using
IRV, the same as with most if not all non-PR elections)
Using PR, it hardly matters if the Sunnis get 10% or 30% of the
representation. Why vote? They are still almost powerless compared
to the competing majority. So a few people a day would rather blow
themselves up then pretend to participate in the charade of one-
choice politics. The neo-cons would not let Iraq use IRV because
they don't want Americans to find out that it would work here too.
Sensing strong PR support, maybe you could help me out by naming
any govt. agency anywhere worldwide that has voluntarily adopted PR
general elections lately. (I did read it that is being repealed
somewhere in the far east because politics were such a mess there)
And an occupied war zone planned as a puppet-state does not count
as "voluntarily" if it tried to use PR.
1st, Scott wrote:
> A parliament IS a legislature.
Well, I have seen them differentiated many times. I thought that
legislatures are elected by district, but parliaments are elected by
PR and then they appoint a prime minister. A prime minister to be in
charge and pull the strings is necessary because PR-elected bodies
are usually hopelessly ineffective and hog-tied by partisans.
Regarding Ireland, It supposedly has the healthiest economy in
Europe and partisan violence has virtually ended since IRV was
adopted. (it would take years to overcome established competition)
However, if the parliament elects a PM, that is not straight IRV and
would make the district elections MORE partisan, probably more than
off-setting the IRV effect.
As a footnote, right now a PR advocate an another list is
vehemently proclaiming that IRV is wrong because it WOULD elect
extremists!, so I am being debated by both sides today!
His arguements are not very coherent though. All these scare-
tactics trying to play on people who may still not really understand
IRV always peter out in the end. Maybe the two of you could get
together and reduce the misinfo to only one arguement against IRV
instead of two contradictory ones.
The bottom line is that IRV/IRV+ best represents voters across
the spectrum by electing moderates with the broadest possible
majority AND minority/extremist support.
Also, you could check the "draft" write-up on this page
http://ElectionMethods.com and offer suggestions if you want. I think
everyone might as well admit that Ranked Pairs(IRV+) is a little more
logical than IRV, but IRV will do for now to address the real
problems of minority disempowerment using 1-choice ballots.
More information about the Election-Methods