[EM] a response to JQ on IRV3/AV3

[Jameson Quinn]

2011/11/3 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>

>
>
>>> Or the Progs and Dems could realize, hey, maybe we can become the two
>>> dominant parties here by not doing that sort of thing...
>>>
>>
>> Not a motivation for the Dems, who already are.
>>
>
> Most Dems, possibly not their leaders,
>

A very important qualification. In fact, I'd say it's more important than
the main clause.


> would prefer to have the other major party be Progs than the current Pub
> party.   This would make the center tilt to the left economically, rather
> than to the right.
>
>>
>>>> If you're about to argue that Dem voters wouldn't do that and risk
>>>> electing a Republican... remember that that same argument would refute any
>>>> importance at all for the LNH criterion. It may be correct that LNH doesn't
>>>> matter - but that's not how FairVote thinks.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know how FairVote thinks.  I think they have a product and they
>>> market it differently towards different audiences.  To electoral egg-heads,
>>> they've pitched LNH as important.  Whether or not 100% LNH is really a hill
>>> they'd be willing to die on is an open question, IMO.
>>>
>>
>> Well, clearly not, because they've explicitly said that Condorcet's LNH
>> failures are somehow less problematic than Bucklin's. Makes no sense at
>> all... but even as such, it shows that they're willing to talk nonsense if
>> it suits them, which is not a die-on-the-hill attitude.
>>
>
> I think more down-to-earth practical considerations matter a lot more than
> Condorcet winners or LNH or what-not.  In the end, democracy is a function
> of habits and rules and the habits matter a lot more than the rules, albeit
> changes in habits can and do lead to changes in rules.
>

And vice versa!

>
> As I've learned from Rob Richie, IRV(when all options are ranked) tends to
> produce the Condorcet winner most of the time.  The long and short is that
> it already is the winner in US electoral reform among alternatives to FPTP
> because of its first-mover and marketing advantages.  This list is unlikely
> to change that.
>

FPTP tends to produce the CW most of the time, too. But it's still a
horrible system even when it does give the CW, because it always stifles
debate and participation.


>>
>>>
>>> I think I trust that in a system that uses a mix of single-winner and PR
>>> rules that the competition between the top two parties will be less
>>> cut-throat and subject to such a low-blow as clone-spawning.
>>> But the real issue here is the future attitude of FairVote to IRV3/AV3
>>> and I'm prone to be optimistic on account of the practical value from
>>> getting the vote-counting done faster...
>>>
>>
>> Well, you'd also have to worry about the following:
>> 1. People support using IRV3/AV2 (As Kathy Dopp already did in another
>> thread)
>> 2. They successfully (and correctly) argue that that's better than
>> IRV3/AV3 for honest results.
>> 3. Then you'd have a serious LNH problem, and all of FairVote's LNH
>> arguments apply pretty much directly.
>>
>
> dlw: I'd label Dopp's preferred method as IRV2/AV3, which really isn't
> IRV.  IRV works rather well with 3 candidates.  It just doesn't sustain a
> competitive 3-way political system.  The system will still tend to readjust
> so we continue to have two dominant parties.  It'll likely be two different
> dominant parties and that's okay.
>
> For if you believe something is right then you're willing to be
> self-sacrificial for it.  And it shouldn't matter so much that you get "the
> right people" into power.  If those who are in power must accommodate you
> to remain in power from henceforth then that's enough.  This is the
> politics of Gandhi, as I see it.  It makes me less perfectionistic about
> electoral reofrm.
>

Have you looked at SODA yet?

I understand you being pragmatic about IRV. But you should still sign the
statement (you can do it just by saying so here on the list.)

Jameson


>
> dlw
>
>>
>> JQ
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111103/d6e7b9ee/attachment-0004.htm>