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

Juho Laatu juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk
Fri Dec 26 02:55:03 PST 2008

--- On Thu, 25/12/08, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <abd at lomaxdesign.com> wrote:

> 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.

Yes, 5% first-preference support
candidates may look bad in countries
that are used to two almost 50%
candidates and some additional
irrelevant alternatives. And yes,
the situation could look quite
different if one would have multiple
parties and 20 viable candidates in
the election.

> 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.

Yes. There are different needs and
different methods. I think Random
Ballot belongs to a different category
of methods than the more typical
single-winner methods that aim at
*always* electing the best candidate.



More information about the Election-Methods mailing list