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

[Jameson Quinn]

What kind of evidence would convince you to change your mind about IRV? How
about on IRV3/AV3 resolving most of IRV's problems? (I believe that using
3-slot+unapproved ballots and implicit approval to run approval/runoff,
which I guess in your notation is IRV3/AV2, would, but don't agree that
IRV3/AV3 would).

Obviously, if your belief in IRV being good enough weren't falsifiable, it
would be just faith. I'm sure that's not the case.

Jameson



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

>
>
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:01 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 4:41 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?
>>
>
> dlw: IDK and I don't need to know.  The ways new parties can be created or
> old parties readjusted are too many.
>
>>
>>
>>> 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.)
>>
>
> dlw: More such issues wd make it onto the agenda more often if P's cd be
> among the top 2 in "more local" elections at the nationwide level.
>
>>
>> To my view, this is unacceptably bad.
>>
>
> dlw: You're failing to take into account how much of the dysfunctional
> behavior of the Ds and Rs is due to their mutual conflicting desire to get
> permanent majorities over the other.  If you take this possibility away,
> you change their incentives to make cooperating more useful.
>
> Both major parties can be reincarnated from their current states.
> Once, we start balancing our use of single-winner and multi-winner
> elections, things'll start changing more often and we won't get stuck in a
> rut like the US has been for 40 so years due to cultural wars wedge
> issues(easier to reframe effectively when third party outsiders are given
> more voice) and the increased agressiveness of $peech (which is easy when
> there are so few competitive elections and third parties are not given a
> constructive role by the use of FPTP for almost all elections) and low
> voter turnout (also known to be increased by PR, it's not known whether
> alts to IRV will have a comparable effect).
>
> dlw
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111122/1c643ef0/attachment-0004.htm>