[EM] Learning from IRV's success

[Bob Richard]

It turns that real live voters (including real live politicians) care a 
lot about the later-no-harm criterion, even if they don't know what it's 
called.

--Bob Richard


On 7/7/2011 3:43 PM, Juho Laatu wrote:
> 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
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>

-- 
Bob Richard
Executive Vice President
Californians for Electoral Reform
PO Box 235
Kentfield, CA 94914-0235
415-256-9393
http://www.cfer.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110707/0cdfc09c/attachment-0004.htm>