<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/11/3 David L Wetzell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wetzelld@gmail.com">wetzelld@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote">
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Or the Progs and Dems could realize, hey, maybe we can become the two dominant parties here by not doing that sort of thing... </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>
Not a motivation for the Dems, who already are.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Most Dems, possibly not their leaders,</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>A very important qualification. In fact, I'd say it's more important than the main clause.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> would prefer to have the other major party be Progs than the current Pub party. This would make the center tilt to the left economically, rather than to the right. </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br></div><div>If you're about to argue that Dem voters wouldn't do that and risk electing a Republican... remember that that same argument would refute any importance at all for the LNH criterion. It may be correct that LNH doesn't matter - but that's not how FairVote thinks.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>I don't know how FairVote thinks. I think they have a product and they market it differently towards different audiences. To electoral egg-heads, they've pitched LNH as important. Whether or not 100% LNH is really a hill they'd be willing to die on is an open question, IMO. </div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Well, clearly not, because they've explicitly said that Condorcet's LNH failures are somehow less problematic than Bucklin's. Makes no sense at all... but even as such, it shows that they're willing to talk nonsense if it suits them, which is not a die-on-the-hill attitude.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think more down-to-earth practical considerations matter a lot more than Condorcet winners or LNH or what-not. In the end, democracy is a function of habits and rules and the habits matter a lot more than the rules, albeit changes in habits can and do lead to changes in rules. </div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>And vice versa! </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br></div><div>As I've learned from Rob Richie, IRV(when all options are ranked) tends to produce the Condorcet winner most of the time. The long and short is that it already is the winner in US electoral reform among alternatives to FPTP because of its first-mover and marketing advantages. This list is unlikely to change that. </div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>FPTP tends to produce the CW most of the time, too. But it's still a horrible system even when it does give the CW, because it always stifles debate and participation. </div><div>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote">
</div><div><br></div>I think I trust that in a system that uses a mix of single-winner and PR rules that the competition between the top two parties will be less cut-throat and subject to such a low-blow as clone-spawning. <div>
But the real issue here is the future attitude of FairVote to IRV3/AV3 and I'm prone to be optimistic on account of the practical value from getting the vote-counting done faster...<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>
</div><div>Well, you'd also have to worry about the following:</div><div>1. People support using IRV3/AV2 (As Kathy Dopp already did in another thread)</div><div>2. They successfully (and correctly) argue that that's better than IRV3/AV3 for honest results.</div>
<div>3. Then you'd have a serious LNH problem, and all of FairVote's LNH arguments apply pretty much directly.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>dlw: I'd label Dopp's preferred method as IRV2/AV3, which really isn't IRV. IRV works rather well with 3 candidates. It just doesn't sustain a competitive 3-way political system. The system will still tend to readjust so we continue to have two dominant parties. It'll likely be two different dominant parties and that's okay. </div>
<div><br></div><div>For if you believe something is right then you're willing to be self-sacrificial for it. And it shouldn't matter so much that you get "the right people" into power. If those who are in power must accommodate you to remain in power from henceforth then that's enough. This is the politics of Gandhi, as I see it. It makes me less perfectionistic about electoral reofrm. </div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Have you looked at SODA yet?</div><div><br></div><div>I understand you being pragmatic about IRV. But you should still sign the statement (you can do it just by saying so here on the list.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>Jameson</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br></div><div>dlw </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><span><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div>
JQ </div></font></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br>
</blockquote></div><br>