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

[James Gilmour]

Kristofer Munsterhjelm  > Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 5:41 PM
> If IRV does elect the true Condorcet winner in all realistic elections 
> (as opposed to the CW according to strategic ballots), and the 
> Australian two-party (two and a third?) dominance arises from IRV, then 
> that means that any Condorcet single-round single winner method will 
> lead to two party dominance. That would be unfortunate. Of course, if it 
> is the truth, no matter how unfortunate it is, it'll still be the truth; 
> and in that case we should focus on multiwinner elections and 
> PR instead.

Whether or not Condorcet single-round single-winner elections have the effect suggested, all assemblies (city councils, state and
federal legislatures, parliaments) should be elected by multi-winner PR voting systems.  That is the only way to ensure that these
"representative" bodies are truly representative of those who voted in the respective elections.

I had always assumed this list was focused so strongly on single-winner voting systems because there are so many important
single-office (hence single-winner) elections in the USA.

James
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1811 - Release Date: 25/11/2008 08:29