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

[Jameson Quinn]

2011/11/22 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>

>
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2011/11/22 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> So you're happy with the Democrat/Republican choice?
>>
>
> No, I believe it's alright to have two major parties so long as the
> duopoly is contested
>

How would a post-Kiss Burlington duopoly be contested?


> and both major parties must regularly reposition themselves around the de
> facto center,
>

That only works for issues that make it onto the agenda; and it works as
well for D/R on a national scale as it would for D/P on a Burlington scale.
(Yes, D/P would be a better local fit for Burlington than D/R; but not
better than D/R is nationally.)

To my view, this is unacceptably bad.


> as created by all of us with a good faith participation in democracy.
>

Jameson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111122/0f0361aa/attachment-0004.htm>