[EM] Warren needs to double check his work.

[Kristofer Munsterhjelm]

On 06/25/2013 12:25 AM, David L Wetzell wrote:
> 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.

So you're saying that nothing short of actually trying the experiment in 
public elections will change your mind? Then I believe I am done here. I 
can't change your position, so all I can do is to argue to others that 
your position is flawed.

Though, on another level, I could argue that IRV itself has already been 
tested in the US. Yes, I'm going to use the B-word. But you have already 
made it clear enough that you consider Burlington to be an anomaly: 
therefore, it appears only widespread center-squeezing will be enough to 
show the inferiority of IRV.

If anything, I'm reminded of a right-populist party over here. Their 
policies have been criticized many times. One of their replies is 
simply: "we've never been in power, so you don't know that it would turn 
out that bad".

> 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.

So long as there are parties, there will always be hierarchy. Fred 
Gohlke argues pretty well for this. He does that because he thinks party 
hierarchy is a bad thing. I'm not going to comment on whether it is, 
here, because it is besides the point. Instead, I'll only say: Why?

There are nations that only use what you call multi-winner rules. There 
are even nations on the American continent that do so. Yet they manage. 
Their lack of what you call single-winner elections for partisan 
positions do not seem to measurably harm them in comparison with similar 
nations that do use such election rules.

> 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.

If Abd is right, then low turnout is a feature, not a bug.

And what do you mean by "and fair in the first election"?