[EM] Learning from IRV's success

[Dave Ketchum]

On Jul 7, 2011, at 7:40 PM, Bob Richard wrote:

> 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.

They need to learn that Condorcet offers less painful response than  
what IRV is offering.
>
Dave Ketchum
>
> --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
>>> -- 
> 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/20110707/5d06f1d0/attachment-0004.htm>