[EM] Learning from IRV's success

[Juho Laatu]

I actually already touched this question in another mail. And the argument was that (in two-party countries) IRV is not as risky risky from the two leading parties' point of view as methods that are more "compromise candidate oriented" (instead of being "first preference oriented"). I think that is one reason, but it is hard to estimate how important.

Juho



On 7.7.2011, at 23.56, Jameson Quinn wrote:

> Russ's message about simplicity is well-taken. But the most successful voting reform is IRV - which is far from being the simplest reform. Why has IRV been successful?
> 
> I want to leave this as an open question for others before I try to answer it myself. The one answer which wouldn't be useful would be "Because CVD (now FairVote) was looking for a single-winner version of STV". There's a bit of truth there, but it's a long way from the whole truth, and we want to find lessons we can learn from moving forward, not useless historical accidents.
> 
> JQ
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info