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

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

James Gilmour wrote:
> 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.

It suggests more than this. If all Condorcet single-round single-winner 
methods strengthen the duopoly, then the important single-winner 
elections should either be made multiple-round (that is, have runoffs), 
or be subordinated to the multiwinner method by some analog of 
parliamentarism.