[EM] Why does IRV but not delayed top-two runoff lead to2-partydomination?

[Michael Ossipoff]

> > Jan Kok wrote:
> >
> > >The statistical evidence at http://rangevoting.org/TTRvIRVstats.html
> > >seems pretty good that IRV leads to two party domination in IRV
> > >elections, while (delayed) top two runoff tends to lead to a strong
> > >multiparty system.
> > >
> > >Why do those two methods, which seem strategically quite similar, lead
> > >to such different results?
> >
> > In 2-balloting top-2 Runoff, the CW can't lose if s/he comes in 1st or 
>2nd
> > in the first balloting.
>
>Ok. How does that lead away from 2 party domination? Can you show a
>scenario where voter incentives are different for IRV and TTR?

Well, the more reliable win for the CW means less need for defensive 
strategy, such as insincerely ranking a top-2 candidate in 1st place. Not 
doing that will help avoid two party domination.

>Are there any Australian web sites, blogs, newspaper or magazine
>editorials, etc. that criticize IRV?

I reply:

I don't know.

Mike Ossipoff