[EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

[David L Wetzell]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> 2011/11/22 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
>
>> Aye, and that still looks better than a two-stage with a 40%
>> cutoff(what's in place now) or FPTP.
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>> If they had stuck with IRV in Burlington, the perceived flaws would have
>> worked themselves out.
>>
>
> How? By people returning to lesser-evil voting, but possibly between
> progressives and democrats? That's not a solution in my book.
>

The two major-party equilibrium would be centered around the de facto
center.

>

> And even if it were, it will take several elections before the time that
> the spoiler isn't the first-round winner so that people can realize they're
> a spoiler.
>

I do not follow.
>


>
>
>> In the US, three-way close races are not common and can be mitigated in
>> other ways, such as are already at work with FPTP.
>>
>
> I don't want to "mitigate" (that is, try to avoid) them, I want to handle
> them correctly.
>

And there is no *correctly *in the ongoing experiment called democracy.
 But when we get caught in notions that there are such, we tend not to
experiment as much.

dlw

>
> Jameson
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111122/37677a87/attachment-0004.htm>