[EM] a response to Kristofer Munsterhjelm re: Fuzzy Options.

[Jameson Quinn]

You keep saying "I'm middlebrow, I think IRV would work OK, because the
parties would shift to wherever they had to be." You could use exactly the
same argument to support plurality. Yet we know that under plurality, the
two-party domination is such that the parties get stuck and/or bought, and
significant ideological segments are unrepresented.

And if it doesn't work the way you expect? A lot of effort, down the drain;
and the well is poisoned for the next reform.

Personally, I have and woud again vote for IRV, if that's the only choice.
But if your goal is to convince all of us - or even one of us - to start
pitching IRV to our friends as the way forward... well, it just won't
happen.

Where we can mostly agree is on something like the statement, which
excoriates plurality, and endorses 4 good systems, but also leaves the door
open to IRV. And getting even that much consensus, honestly, is a struggle.

JQ

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

>
>>>>
>>> dlw: Well, 1. IRV3 doesn't let folks rank all of the options and so it
>>> hopefully has more quality control on which options are ranked.
>>> 2. by not always giving us the "center", it does permit learning about
>>> the different viewpoints.  Remember, since I'm middle-brow, I don't put as
>>> much significance on optimizing within the distribution of political
>>> opinion space.
>>>
>>
>> JQ:Balinski and Laraki studied a number of rules, and found that IRV and
>> Plurality elected an extremist almost 100% of the time; Condorcet and Range
>> elected a centrist almost 100%; and only Majority Judgment elected both
>> centrists and extremists with about equal balance. So "learning about the
>> different viewpoints does not favor IRV, but rather MJ.
>>
> dlw: But since I'm middle-brow, then I'm rather agnostic about "centrism".
>  The political center is at best a useful fiction or something
> tautologically always present and always shifting.  It isn't something that
> you can construct a political party around and keep from going stale.
>
>>
>>
>>> 3. It introduces some uncertainty in the circulation of the elites,
>>> which can give alternative viewpoints a chance to get a better hearing.
>>>  When a new third party gains ground, it'll get a serious hearing and
>>> hopefully the de facto center will be moved.
>>>
>>
>> JQ:Again, this actually argues for MJ more than IRV.
>>
> dlw: What the potential for spoilers doesn't create uncertainty or give
> third parties some sway with the major parties?  The main losers are the
> centrists, but with two dynamic shifting major parties, as I envision in my
> ideal-type democracy, why would we really need a centrist party?
> dlw
>
>>
>> JQ
>>
>>>
>>> dlw
>>>
>>> ----
>>> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>>> info
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111103/a5b4f0da/attachment-0004.htm>