[EM] Mike O.

[David L Wetzell]

>
>
> dlw: I agree with JQ's approach of realism that presumes that LNH or the
>
> Weak Cournot Winner problem matters because it is important to take into
> account the fears of incumbents when pushing electoral reform.
>
> [endquote]
>
> ...so Dave is pushing for something that current incumbants will like because it
>
> will keep on electing the same two odious parties, as lesser-evils, at Myerson-Weber equilibrium.
>
>
dlw: nope, I'm pushing for a package that'll result in there tending to be
two rather different major parties held accountable by an indefinite no. of
minor parties and a lot of LTPs.  I believe that the  problem isn't the
tendency for there to be 2 major parties, but rather the tendency for there
to be only one major party and a stagnant center.

>
> Dave says:
>
> As for your dumb and dumber characterization, this gets at my arg that
>
> lowering the Pirv
>
> After Burlington, Pirv(federal) = 0.
>
>
Once again, that is what is in dispute.   The evidence does not show that.

>
>
> ...doesn't raise the Poth
>
> [endquote]
>
> If IRV continues to embarrass electoral reform, then P(anything) will approach zero.
> That's why serious advocates of electoral reform must distance themselves from IRV,
>
> FairVote, and Richie.
>
>
Or follow RBJ in ignoring you...


>
> Dave says:
>
> ...because there is no unity over
> which election rule would take the place of IRV3 as the de facto leader by
> virtue of its P if not it's X.
>
> [endquote]
>
>
> Can we guess that Dave is using "X" to stand for "merit"?
>
> No, it's a fuzzy notion, a lot more fuzzy than P, at least in the
short-term.

>
> Most people wouldn't propose something more complicated than Approval unless it's
> better than Approval.
>
>
The opportunities for some to game an Approval Vote makes it not a good
election reform, at least in the near-future for most political elections.

>
> IRV is the "de facto leader", in terms of local enactments, due to heavy promotion
>
> by means of someone's personal wealth. It's rather like buying your son's way into
> a prestigious university, and then buying him a degree there.
>
>
Most People are happy with IRV in MN, except for those who really liked
gaming FPTP.
Lots of people have worked hard to reach US_Americans stuck thinking of
FPTP as the only election rule.
And since our system uses FPTP, it's been necessary to simplify the
presentation of alternatives to FPTP.

IRV is not a bad rule, whether it's the best rule is irrelevant, it's best
positioned to replace FPTP as the main single-winner election rule and
trying to replace it with umpteen alternatives is only going to distract us
from what is far more important: rallying around American forms of PR.

>
> There's no unity about which method we like best, but there is a strong consensus
> that Approval is pretty good, and it's the obvious, natural proposal due to its
>
> simplicity and its minimal change from Plurality.
>
>
There is no consensus on alternatives to IRV as the main alternative to
FPTP (or a two-round or a top-two primary approach).   Thus, we could spend
our time/energy trying to get a consensus or we could be pragmatic and
trust that with the adoption of American forms of PR+IRV that there'd be
more scope for considering additional options/reforms later.

no time for the rest.
dlw
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120124/c9f6f6d9/attachment-0003.htm>