[EM] a comment

[Michael Allan]

David, Which post are you commenting on?

David L Wetzell said:
> If you're going to pit two election rules against each other by using them
> both and then have voters decide between the cases when they differ then
> you're going to have sample
> selection problems.  For it's potentially more work, there might be a
> learning curve for many voters with some rules, which would muddy the
> evidence, and I find it hard for politicians to agree to such an experiment
> or not tamper the evidence by additional targeted campaigning if it did go
> into a face-off.
> Or what if there's been significant amounts of voter error in a close
> election(in one of the two) or even possibly selective tampering as a
> potential source of differing outcomes?  C
> 
> It sounds like a nice experiment, but it'd have a terrible marketing
> problem, apart from perhaps the internal elections of modestly-sized third
> parties committed to experimenting with different elections.
> 
> I am fascinated with the scope for increased experimentation in the USA if
> the GOP civil war weakens the center-right-ish party so that it'd be in
> their interest to push for a less winner-take-all electoral system.  But I
> think it's fair to focus on electoral reforms that won't end the tendency
> to 2-party domination, but rather end the tendency to single-party
> domination that currently exists in the US's political system and that
> makes it so hard for our leaders to get anything done...
> 
> dlw