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

[Kevin Venzke]

Hi Kristofer,

--- En date de : Mar 25.11.08, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km-elmet at broadpark.no> a écrit :
> 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.

Might depend on what your goals are. If you want multiple parties in
order to represent more interests, best go to PR in the first place.
I want it to be possible to have multiple viable "parties" in order
to make it more likely that the median voter can get what he actually
wants.

For the latter, I don't think it's clear that if Condorcet can't succeed,
nothing can.

Kevin Venzke