[EM] EM] IRV's adequacy depends on a two-party system

[David L Wetzell]

On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>wrote:

> There is a fundamental difference between two-party dominance, which will
> probably not change any time soon, and a two-party duopoly. 45%, 40%, 8%,
> 5%... is dominance; 51% 47% 1%... is duopoly. Any system which gives bad
> enough results when there are more than two parties will be a two party
> duopoly; and it seems highly possible that that includes IRV. And I think
> that many of the current problems, including the outsized power of
> "$peech", are inevitable consequences of a monopoly.


duopoly you mean?

>
> David, you believe differently. But your guesses about how things would
> work are just that. You can't point to a real-world example. And so, as
> you've essentially admitted, we're not likely to believe you until you do
> have evidence. Nor, in my opinion, should we.
>

I can offer the history of the US prior to the past 40 years as evidence
that a 2-party duopolized system can work.

It is not a coincidence that from 1870-1980 that in one of the economically
most important states of the US, IL, the competition between the two major
parties was handicapped by the use of 3-seat quasi-PR state rep election
rule.  This enabled other states who were economically more dependent on IL
to be politically independent of IL.  They experimented and a lot of those
experiments spilled over to foster critical changes in the rest of the USA.


All of this while FPTP was still being used...

So why do you claim I don't have evidence?  The US doesn't need an
EU-system to reinvigorate its democracy.  It needs to draw from its own
history and to trust that local activism will have a trickle-up effect on
national and international outcomes.

>
> In other words: You could be right. So stop arguing about this and go out
> there and prove it.
>

will do.

dlw

>
> Jameson
>
> 2011/12/2 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: MIKE OSSIPOFF <nkklrp at hotmail.com>
>> To: <election-methods at electorama.com>
>> Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 19:19:28 +0000
>> Subject: [EM] IRV's adequacy depends on a two-party system
>>
>>
>> David Wetzel said:
>>
>> s for center-squeezing, that's not really a problem in the US as a
>>
>>
>> whole...
>> Third parties are too small and scattered.
>>
>> [endquote]
>>
>> MO: Ok, so David is saying that IRV is adequate adequate only in a two-party system.
>>
>> dlw: David is saying,
>>
>>
>> Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change [two-party dominated system in US]
>>
>> and the courage to change the things I can change [rallying support of others around American forms of PR + IRV]
>>
>> and the wisdom to tell the difference between a dysfunctional two-party system and one that would "work".
>>
>> dlw
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>> info
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111202/640605d8/attachment-0004.htm>