[EM] Why I think IRV isn't a serious alternative 2

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 02:42 AM 12/24/2008, Juho Laatu wrote:
> > ... the Condorcet voting system will never get off the ground
> > so long as a 5% FP Condorcet winner is a realistic scenario,
> > as it is when
> > the current (pre-reform) political system is so dominated
> > by two big political parties.
>
>The question is if methods that may
>regularly elect a 5% first place support
>Condorcet winner can be politically
>acceptable.

That a 5% first-preference support candidate could be the Condorcet 
winner is radically improbable under anything like current 
conditions. For it to happen would probably take very different 
conditions, which would probably mean that we don't have a clue as to 
what would be politically acceptable.

I can easily imagine such a winner with Asset used single-winner, and 
there wouldn't be any question about legitimacy, it would be 
*obviously* legitimate.

>One reason supporting this approach is
>that most single-winner methods are
>designed to always elect compromise
>winners. (Some methods like random ballot
>are an exception since they give all
>candidates a proportional probability to
>become elected.)

Random ballot hasn't a snowball's chance, I'd say. Even though the 
theory might support it, I wouldn't vote for it! Not unless there is 
some prefiltering. I'd support random ballot in close elections where 
the winner isn't clear. It could cause some defacto proportional 
representation, and I know of a prominent and very important -- to me 
-- organization where that is done.

In electing delegates to the General Service Conference, area 
conferences hold repeated ballots; they are seeking a two-thirds vote 
supporting the delegate. If it can't be found within a certain number 
of ballots or time, I'm not sure which, the winner is selected at 
random from among the top two.

AA is an organization which seeks general consensus, and this 
approach gives minority positions some representation, they've been 
using it for more than fifty years. "Some representation" is enough 
when consensus is being sought....