[EM] [CES #3650] FairVote folks are not the friendliest bunch

[James Gilmour]

Toby Pereira   > Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 8:11 PM
> > From: James Gilmour <jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk>
> >But suppose the votes had been (again ignoring irrelevant preferences):
> >   48 A>C
> >    47 B>C
> >    5 C    
> > "C" is still the Condorcet winner - no question about that.  But I 
> >doubt whether anyone could successfully sell such a result to the 
> >electorate, at least, not here in the UK.
> 
> >And I have severe doubts about how effective such a winner could be in 
> >office. Quite apart from the sceptical electorate, the politicians of 
> >Party A and of Party B would be hounding such an office-holder daily.  
> >And the media would be no help  -  they would just pour fuel on the 
> >flames.  The result would be political chaos and totally ineffective 
> >government.
> 
> >The flaw in IRV is that it can, sometimes, fail to elect the Condorcet 
> >winner.  But IRV avoids the "political" problem of the weak Condorcet 
> >winner.  I suspect that's why IRV has been accepted for many public and 
> >semi-public elections despite the Condorcet flaw.

> I don't think I would have a problem with C winning here, if 
> the votes were all sincere.

Even if all the votes are sincere, it is irrelevant what you or I think.  It is what ordinary electors would think about such a
winner, with only 5% of the first preferences.  And those electors would not be left in peace to reflect quietly on the potential of
their (weak) "Condorcet winner".  Their views would be whipped up by partisan politicians and by a hostile press and media.  That
Condorcet winner would still be the Condorcet winner, but that's not how such an outcome would be portrayed.  The world of real
politics is a very brutal, nasty and dirty place, but that's where practical electoral reformers have to work (at least for the time
being) if they really want to change anything.

James Gilmour