<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
Mike,<br>
You wrote (Tue.Jun.8):<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>><i>From the 3 Australians that I had the opportunity to ask, I heard that it
</i>isn't unusual for preferrers of non-big-2 candidates to insincerely rank in
first place the big-2 candidate whom they like better than the other big-2
candidate, to avoid "wasting [their] vote". Australia has had IRV for a
along time, but parties are still mostly unwilling to run more than 1
candidate per election, contrary to the hopes when IRV was adopted.</pre>
</blockquote>
CB: You are not STILL talking about the apocryphal "3 Australians"? You
don't update the results of your on-going survey<br>
of reports by Australians about how IRV operates there very often, do you?
Let me refresh you memory of an on-list discussion<br>
you had with the Australian Albert Langer in December 1998 with some excerpts.<br>
<br>
This from a post dated Fri.Dec.4, 1998 ("IRO" means IRV, and "VA" stands
for "Votes Against" and refers to Condorcet,<br>
Winning Votes.)<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
<tt>[AL]<br>
In Australia IRO makes the support for third parties highly visible.<br>
NOBODY who would vote for them under Approval or VA fails to vote for<br>
them as a result of strategic considerations concerning IRO.<br>
Nevertheless, since they never win any seats they don't get to build<br>
their support in the way that they would if they were represented.<br>
<br>
Of course they wouldn't dominate a PR Parliament either. They would<br>
simply be represented, which is all that PR supporters have ever claimed<br>
for PR. As a result of being represented they might build their support,<br>
so the two party monopoly makes damn sure they aren't.<br>
<br>
<snip><br>
<br>
[MO]<br>
</tt><tt> With IRO something _does_ prevent people from registering their
support<br>
for a less winnable alternative: The fact that while their vote is<br>
on their favorite, a needed compromise might get eliminated, resulting<br>
in the victory of one's most despised last choice.<br>
<br>
[AL]<br>
Nope. That is just your speculation. Ask any Australian of any political<br>
persuasion and you'll find that this just isn't a factor in the way<br>
people actually vote here (as opposed to the way parties plan their<br>
campaigns). <snip></tt></blockquote>
You wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>You continued:
..., voters and political parties would hate approval.
I reply:
Why would voters hate Approval more than Plurality? Because it lets them
always vote for their favorite instead of having to strategically abandon
hir? Because it gives them the freedom to vote for and show support for
people they like better than their Plurailty compromise?
Your claim is not only unjustified, it's absurd.</pre>
</blockquote>
CB: This thread is "Approval vs. IRV", not "Approval vs. Plurality". Of
course Approval is an unambiguous improvement<br>
on Plurality, and those voters who notice any difference will (probably)
prefer it. Why will small parties prefer IRV to Approval?<br>
Because small parties like it to be possible that all indications from published
polls and previous elections are wrong, and this time<br>
the voters will vote as they reccomend and vote them in to office. Under
Approval, that means either continuing to vote as in <br>
Plurality and foregoing any say among the real contenders (and opening
the door to the election of the Condorcet or even<br>
Majority loser) or completely abandoning the fantasy and saying, in effect,
"We want the result to be a tie between us and one of<br>
the major parties" , which is false and ridiculous. Under IRV, they are not
in that bind. They can say "Vote for us as your unique<br>
favourite, so that if enough of you do we will win, but if we are eliminated
then you can still have your say among the main contenders", plus they get
some clout that can arise if they are seen as having the power to "direct
preferences".<br>
<br>