[EM] Warren needs to double check his work.

[David L Wetzell]

KM:Alright, then tell me what kind of evidence would change your mind as to
whether the scarcity of competitive candidates is an artifact of Plurality
or inherent to single-winner elections. (If no such evidence can exist,
then there's no point in discussing.)

dlw:Let's switch to IRV + American forms of PR(in more local elections) and
watch the feedback loop.   We should be able to observe over time how the
dynamics of elections shift, as voter-prefs get better cultivated.  When
folks get habituated to the new system then it'd be easy to put multiple
alts to IRV on various ballots, using IRV to choose between them, and then
we'd see from various experiments  whether upgrading from IRV continues a
feedback loop in improving the quantity as well as quality of competitive
candidates on the ballot.

KM:And furthermore, tell me why we shouldn't just use what you call
"multi-winner elections" like runoffs and not have to take on faith that no
single-winner method can produce diversity.

dlw: We need both diversity and hierarchy.  This is why we need a mix of
election rules, some encouraging diversity/equality, others encouraging
hierarchy/order.  We need the latter because of the need for collective
action and coordination.

I classify multiple stage elections as hybrids between multi-winner and
single-winner elections.  I think they're costly but good systems.  If we
replaced all of our current fptp systems with a partisan primary in the US
with the FairVote upgrade on top two primary, it'd improve the system.  But
I'd rather not use one election rule for all elections.  I think it'd be
hard to get turnout up and fair in the first election, even with four
winners.

dlw

dlw


On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm <
km_elmet at lavabit.com> wrote:

> On 06/24/2013 11:22 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
>
>> Another might add, "This is why the number of competitive candidates and
>> the extent of low-info voters matters in the comparison".
>>
>
> Alright, then tell me what kind of evidence would change your mind as to
> whether the scarcity of competitive candidates is an artifact of Plurality
> or inherent to single-winner elections. (If no such evidence can exist,
> then there's no point in discussing.)
>
> And furthermore, tell me why we shouldn't just use what you call
> "multi-winner elections" like runoffs and not have to take on faith that no
> single-winner method can produce diversity.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20130624/e75103cb/attachment-0004.htm>