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

[Ted Stern]

On 02 Dec 2011 13:05:04 -0800, David L. Wetzell wrote:
>
> 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. ??

Monarchies can "work":  See Darius's arguments to the Persians [from
Herodotus].

    http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/herodotus-persdemo.asp 
    (section III.82)

And Henry II's good government of England in the 12th century laid the
groundwork of expectation of fairness that led to the Magna Carta in
the 13th.

Whether a system works is no argument.  The question is whether it is
consistent with the goals that the country has set out for itself.


> 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...

Your argument is mixing apples and oranges and is therefore pointless.

A semi-PR method (CV) was used for Illinois representatives, while
FPTP was used for other offices.

As I'm sure you're aware, the type of representation one wishes to
achieve in legislatures is different than the type one wants for
executive office.  In legislatures, PR leads to diversity, while for
executives, we want a centrist-biased method to apply selection
pressure, in the fairest way possible, to the diverse voices of the
legislature.

> 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. ??

There are also strong examples from its own history that the system
can lead to systemic corruption that can only be resisted by
overwhelming public support.

In other words, instead of designing things to work correctly, we tend
to let things go on until they break and then we put in a fix.

Ted

>     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
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

-- 
araucaria dot araucana at gmail dot com