<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">---------- Forwarded message ----------</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">From: Kristofer Munsterhjelm <<a href="mailto:km_elmet@lavabit.com" target="_blank">km_elmet@lavabit.com</a>></span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">To: David L Wetzell <<a href="mailto:wetzelld@gmail.com" target="_blank">wetzelld@gmail.com</a>></span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 14:45:29 +0100</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Subject: Re: [EM] Response to Kristofer Musterhjelm</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Since many of your replies follow the same pattern, I'm going to address them where I first see each. Thus I may veer a bit from replying only to the issue quoted.</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:I've also been a bit slow in writing this. I'll blame work and play :-)</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br>dlw:I'ts been mostly work for me...<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">-</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">David L Wetzell wrote:</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"></font><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
No, I'm saying that we don't need to end 2 party rule in the USA to make our political system work considerably better. IRV makes it so that the 2 major parties will have to center themselves around the true center. <br>
I advocate the use of 3-5 seat PR in "more local" elections so as to handicap the rivalry between the two major parties, increase the number of competitive elections and to give third parties a more constructive role to play in the US political system: ensuring the protection of economic/ethnic/ideological minority rights.<br>
</blockquote><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM wrote: </span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"> I'll use Australia again. Its IRV chamber should give some idea of what you would expect to see in terms of IRV elections, because each member of parliament is elected on a single-winner basis from a single district.</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">If IRV produced competitive local elections, you would expect to see some of those local elections have an effect on the national IRV seats. Then the major parties would move to reclaim the seats, and so readjust themselves closer to the center. Say that Congressional seats were elected by IRV and because of the local elections advantage you mention, the Progressives grew strong in Vermont. Then you might see at least one Progressive member elected to the House from Vermont. This would then signal to the major parties (probably the Democrats) to consider whether to move to the left to recapture those seats.</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">However, in Australia, there are very few third-party seats in the IRV chamber at all. According to Wikipedia, minor parties only won seats in 1946, 1996, and 1990-2010. The mean number of third party seats for these years were 2.9, or 2.1% of the house (because of changing number of seats).</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Either the major parties were very good at anticipating the direction they were to move to the center (and very good also at avoiding any slipups), or the feedback is weak indeed.</span><div>
[endquote]</div><div><br></div><div>dlw: I agree that with IRV, all the two biggest parties in an area got to do is keep the third party challengers from breaking into the top two. This retains two-party dominance. So you're saying the available evidence doesn't favor IRV being improved by use along with PR. </div>
<div><br></div><div>This however misses my more important point of prescribing the use of local forms of PR for "more local" elections and IRV for "less local" elections.... And so I think the Aussie mixed approach would work better if the use of PR and IRV were switched between Senate and the IRV chamber. The goal here is to maximize the number of competitive seats so as to keep legislators/parties responsive while retaining a big two to ensure quality control and to trust that major changes will come about thru political cultural changes apart from elections or the circulation of our political elites. </div>
<div><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:State election results also show the state heads - the states' equivalents of prime ministers - to be either NatLib or Labour most of the time. See the Wikipedia article about Politics of Australia for a graph of that. I know it's not analogous to Governor elections because the legislature picks the state head, but in PR countries, small parties may get the prime minister anyway.</span></div>
<div>[endquote]</div><div>dlw: So long as there's turnaround between the two big ones and they're both adaptive to emerging issues, this is not a deal-killer for me. <br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:Finally, IRV may not actually improve ethnic divisions. See </span><a href="http://rangevoting.org/FraenkelG.html" style="color:rgb(17,85,204);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px" target="_blank">http://rangevoting.org/<u></u>FraenkelG.html</a><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"> .</span></div>
<div>[endquote]</div><div><br></div><div>dlw:I didn't say it would. I would never call for IRV alone as a way to secure minority rights or to reconcile a polarized society. My belief is that what matters most is for us to work out the right balance between single-winner and multi-winner/PR elections and that the sorts of options given voters in single-winner elections are of second order importance. So I would go a step further and forecast that if IRV had been replaced with some other single-winner election, like Approval Voting, it wouldn't have improved things. </div>
<div><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
</blockquote></blockquote><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,204)">dlw wrote</span>:I take as given that the economies of scale in running for single-winner offices will make it so that there are two major parties. <br>
</blockquote><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:I'll consider it likely that economies of scale will favor major parties. It does not, as such, need to favor them so severely that there are only two viable options for the candidacy, however.</span></div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">[endquote]</span></div><div><br></div><div>dlw: This is probably why I want a multi-stage presidential election that makes folks pick their 3 favs out of 7. <br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:From a logical point of view, Plurality elections favor major parties because minor parties would split the vote. Therefore, it's important to know who the candidates most likely to win are, so that you don't actively hurt your case by voting for a minor party of your preference and splitting the vote. What is the problem here? It is that voting in the way you prefer would hurt you.</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">In IRV, voting in the way you prefer doesn't hurt you... until the third parties get large enough that they might affect the elimination order. When they do, the election can swing the wrong way, so voting the way you want can hurt you if your choice would have made a difference - i.e. if minor party candidates have any chance of winning.</span></div>
<div>[endquote]</div><div><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
dlw: But if the parties and third parties know that when a third party gets stronger it can have a spoiler effect, it should lead to strategic changes to prevent this from happening. Strategic voting will still happen and will tend to support there being two major parties, but if IRV had been retained in Burlington, those two parties would have been the Progs and the Dems. Pubs would have started voting strategically for Dems and the center would shift, relative to where it was due to FPTP. The duopoly would be contested. </div>
<div> <br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM: So when we go at this from the logical point of view, the extent to which single-winner methods favor major parties seems to differ. I would point out that top-two runoff works, and that (as I showed in another post of mine) it does give a number of effective candidates significantly greater than two -- but you don't consider top-two runoff a single-winner method. Since I do, I don't think single-winner methods (or should we say, methods that are used to elect individual candidates for single positions) have such a steep barrier that only major parties can participate.</span></div>
<div>[endquote]</div><div><br></div><div>dlw: It's a hybrid. There are more than two effective candidates in the non single-winner stage....</div><div>And, even if third parties win some seats due to a top-two runoff, it doesn't mean there aren't going to be two major coalitions of parties that will function not unlike two major parties in many ways. <br>
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM: If you disqualify the runoff method, then pretty much all you're left with is Plurality and IRV. In both Plurality and IRV nations, you see major parties winning almost all the time, even when counterbalanced with PR (e.g. Australia). So then you could of course say that from our {Plurality, IRV} based sample, all single-winner methods elect overwhelmingly from major parties, and you could say that it's because of economics of scale.</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">To me, it seems these economics of scale are of the sort that are needed to compensate for the methods' failure modes. You need to unite to win in Plurality, and that kind of unification, almost by definition, favors the major parties greatly. You also need to unite to win in IRV because IRV has problems once the third parties get large enough.</span></div>
<div><br></div><div>dlw: Basically, We're saying the same thing. <br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:If I'm right, then the extent of major-party dominance isn't given by the single-winner approach, but by the tool used. What we'd really need would be examples of non-{IRV, Plurality} methods being used. How did the Bucklin method fare in Minnesota?</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">(And I know about Borda and Nauru Borda. The latter is pretty much Plurality, and the former has severe cloning problems that rewards those who can field the most candidates.)</span></div>
<div><br></div><div>dlw: The only counter example you give me from single-winners leading to two major party rule is an "impure" single-winner method. This does not suggest that the use of other pure single-winner methods would end two-party rule. <br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><br></blockquote>
</blockquote><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,204)">dlw wrote</span>: My ideal type isn't in use anywhere. <<a href="http://anewkindofparty.blogspot.com/2011/03/strategic-election-reform-explained.html" style="color:rgb(17,85,204)" target="_blank">http://anewkindofparty.<u></u>blogspot.com/2011/03/<u></u>strategic-election-reform-<u></u>explained.html</a>><br>
<br>
</blockquote><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:That sounds like a runoff method. You have an Approval first stage and an IRV second stage. (This initially threw me off because "AV" also is an abbreviation for "Alternative Vote", another term for IRV.)</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Perhaps the runoff aspect of the combined method can outweigh the two-party dominance of IRV. On its own, IRV seems to give two parties, but also to give them such power that they aren't really contested by minor parties. IRV has at least kept the same major parties major in both countries where it's used, despite the PR that pulls in the other direction. So again, I think IRV's hierarchy force is stronger than PR's pluralizing force. It might be weaker than Plurality's, but if you get a two-party situation in both cases, then what's the difference? As for trying to fix IRV by applying a runoff round, it seems like a hack. If you're going to depart from the one-stage-IRV approach, let's get it right. Let's use a good method, not a fix that may or may not work on a method that, in my opinion, doesn't get far enough away from the uncontested duopoly tendencies of Plurality.</span></div>
<div>[endquote]</div><div><br></div><div>dlw: It seems the key difference between us is how to make the two party dominance more contested. </div><div><br></div><div>I'm arguing that if we used PR in "More local" elections that IRV would significantly improve upon FPTP in most "less local" elections and could still be tabulated at the precinct level and counted more quickly by virtue of the use of an Approval Vote first stage. I think that so long as some of the PR elections enable third party candidates to get elected then they can play the two major parties off of each other to make the overall system more fair and enable the rise of a minor party if the two major parties fail to adapt. You think we need another single-winner alternative to get the job done, because IRV+PR in its limited usage hasn't been adequate at faciliting the circulation of the elites. </div>
<div>
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM: Even if you disregard that, IRV still tends to amplify small changes into great ones. If you have a narrow victory in any round of IRV's</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">elimination, you might have to do a recount in that one (assuming it</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">has an impact on the subsequent eliminations), not just in the final round.</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">I also think that if you have to have an IRV3 second round, the first</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">round should be proportional. Otherwise, the cloning problems I have mentioned earlier may happen and thus make IRV3 itself redundant.</span></div>
<div>[endquote]</div><div>dlw: But with IRV3/AV3 then if there was a narrow victory between the third and fourth place candidates in the first stage you could do the tabulations for two different sets of three finalists and only have to do a recount if their final outcome in the second stage differed between the two.</div>
<div>As for PR in the first round, cloning problems can be resolved by increasing intra-party discipline and developing ways to fight skullduggery with exposure of campaign finances. What AV3 has in favor as a first stage is simplicity. It's damn easy to tabulate the number of rankings each candidate receives, just as the number of votes get tabulated with a FPTP election. <br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:Consider this situation, for instance. You have Republicans and Democrats, and either R or D will win the approval vote. Then both parties field, say, ten candidates, and all who like the Republicans approve of only the Republicans - and all who like the Democrats approve of only the Democrats. Say without loss of generality that the Democrats win. Then all ten Democratic candidates will have more Approval votes than any Republican, and so the next stage will be filled with Democrats. Therefore, a Democrat will win, no matter how the IRV3 stage behaves. The same thing holds for the Republicans: if there are ten R candidates and all R-votes strategically approve of all of them, the IRV3 stage will be populated entirely by Republicans and so have little meaning (except to apply the IRV logic to determine *which* Republican wins).</span></div>
<div>[endquote]</div><div><br></div><div>
dlw: A smart party would do what it could to reduce the number of candidates if not officially, effectively. If the smaller R party does it, then the D party will need to do the same....when they reduce the number of serious candidates then there'd be scope for moderate Rs to vote for moderate Ds and vice versa.</div>
<div>As for the Dems crowding teh 3rd stage, if they're the more popular party, it doesn't really matter that they are the only finalists. </div><div>What does matter is that the Democrat who wins will be more appealing to Rs on average than would be the case if it was FPTP. <br>
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,204)">dlw</span>: All election rules can be viewed as like games. My point is that one can account for the greater pluralism with a top-two runoff by the fact it's first stage is not single-winner. So it's consistent with my theory that it's single-winner elections that lead to relatively few parties. And since there inevitably have to be important single-winner elections, it's also inevitable that there will tend to be two dominant parties (or two dominant party coalitions, which will act not unlike the two dominant parties)...</blockquote>
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">You're equivocating here. First you say that "single-winner elections</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">lead to relatively few parties" (where single-winner means those that</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">have only one stage). Then you say that "there inevitably have to be</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">important single-winner elections", where single-winner means elections</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">to single seats. There inevitably has to be no such thing by your first</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">definition of single-winner. France uses single-winner in the second</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">sense by having legislative elections, as well as presidential ones, use</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">top-two runoff.</span></div><div>[endquote]</div><div>dlw: I believe the top two runoff in France has retained the existence of two major parties, albeit with some significant minor parties and lots of me-threes and so I don't see it's use as upsetting my point. They use hybrids between single and multi-elections. This is why there's scope for more parties and some who play a significant role. <br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM: To avoid further confusion, let's call the one-round methods</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">"single-winner" (as by your terminology) and the methods used to pick a</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">winner for an individual position "single-office". You haven't shown</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">that there must inevitably be single-winner elections, only that there</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">must be single-office elections.</span></div><div><br></div><div>dlw: by your terminology that is true. I consider the second stage of ttr as a single winner election. I also consider the indirect selection of the PM after their use of a nationwide PR election in Israel as single-winner election. <br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
KM:In any case, if the runoff method leads to plurality, why not use<br> it? It clearly doesn't produce paralyzing Plurality - France tried<br> PR and then returned to top-two as they considered PR to fragment<br>
too much, which implies that top-two didn't. Furthermore, runoffs<br> have seen wider use than IRV, including in the US, and so practical<br> cases can be used to argue for it; and it seems to overturn<br> Plurality more often than IRV does.<br>
</blockquote></blockquote><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,204)">dlw</span>: I'd rather use 3-5 seat forms of PR in "more local" elections to ensure plurality. I'm okay with using IRV for "less local" elections, because I value both plurality and hierarchy at the same time. <br>
</blockquote><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">I think IRV gives too much hierarchy - so much that its dynamics isn't</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">noticably different from Plurality. I try to back that up with references to Ireland and Australia, as well as pointing out where the problems start to show up with IRV (when third candidates start to matter and are no longer just for show).</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">If you want a Plurality level of hierarchy, just use Plurality plus PR.</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">(I wonder if any country actually does that.)</span></div><div>[endquote]</div><div><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
dlw: I believe Germany's MMP system uses Plurality plus PR. </div><div>IRV ties the two major parties more so to the center. It allows thrid party candidates to raise important issues in "less local" elections and get treated with respect by the major party candidates. It's a clear improvement over FPTP, it just doesn't end effective two party domination. </div>
<div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> </blockquote>
</blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,204)">dlw</span>: I'm not an expert on the cost of the machines, but extra rounds of elections are quite costly... and IRV can be precinct-summable if IRV3/AV3 is used. If one treats the ranked votes as approval votes then one can get three finalists almost immediately. Then, one can summarize the votes by sorting them at the precinct level into the ten ways one can rank the three finalists: 6 rankings of 2 of them, 3 rankings of one of them, and 1 ranking of none of them. <br>
So the cost arg for IRV is a valid one. And I'm cool with advocating for IRV plus (more local) PR, as opposed to IRV alone...<br></blockquote><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:Is IRV3/AV3 single-winner or just single-office?</span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br>
</span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">dlw: I'd say it's single-winner by your criterion. The first stage tabulates the votes differently than the second stage. </span></div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM: If it has two rounds,</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">then you are dealing with a runoff. If it has only one round, and you</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">infer the Approval data from the ranking, then you're going to have to</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">have some sort of communication (or central counting) to know which</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">three candidates you're going to pass to the IRV stage, and thus it</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">isn't strictly summable.</span></div><div><br></div><div>dlw: It's not strictly summable, because there's the back and forth to determine the three finalists so that the rankings information can be sorted into the ten relevant categories. But the 10 categories can be summarized at the precinct level. <br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,204)">dlw</span>: It's also possible that one can bring too much info into the open and thereby gain an degree of obscurity. Lots of inevitable compromises in politics are easier to work out when there's less transparency. <br>
</blockquote><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:I can only speak for my own country, but that has never been a problem</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">here. I haven't heard of such being a problem except for places where</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">they have other, more serious, problems too (like the participants of</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">the political system trying to game said system by any means available and so actively muddy the situation as much as they can).</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Perhaps Juho can tell us whether it's a problem in Finland, but I don't think it is there, either.</span></div><div>[endquote]</div>
<div><br></div><div>dlw: It's easier to do that with smaller country with a relatively homogenous culture. </div><div>It's also hard to move directly from a two-party dominated system to a system such as yours.</div>
<div>This is part of why I focus on alternatives that retain two-party domination but prevent single-party domination. </div><div>It is the destructive cut-throat competition from the tendency to single-party domination in the US that has </div>
<div>caused a lot of the problems that people pin on us having a two-party system. <br>
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM: The transparency means that parties can't promise an unwavering position at the center of their area of political space. They will have to compromise in order to get what they want, and so pull the mean position of political decisions closer to their point. In a world where parties are expected to be hard and unflinching, this may seem hypocritical, since they can no longer be the defenders of their positions through and through. In reality, the people get used to the more pragmatic nature of give-and-take, and can use the record to judge how well parties are negotiating for their position when they can't get it all.</span></div>
<div>[endquote]</div><div><br></div><div>dlw: I've no dout expectations change and so does behavior/habits.<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM: I also have a more abstract argument in favor of transparency. If you have too little transparency, you can't really synthesize more transparency out of it. However, if you have "too much" transparency, the media or independent efforts like OpenSecrets can aggregate the wealth of data for the people's benefit.</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">So if there are disadvantages to transparency, it's either that the feedback by the people upsets the process too much -- or it is that said media and independent efforts not being up to the task, the torrent of data overwhelming the people.</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">When small towns feel too small because everybody knows everything about everybody else and thus nobody has any privacy, it's the former. When one speaks of information overload, it's the latter.</span></div>
<div><br></div><div>dlw: Even if I agreed about the desirability of such a system, it's not in the cards for the US. </div><div>BTW, did you watch the documentary film "too much Norway"?? I liked it. I'm mainly Swedish-American.<br>
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,204)">dlw</span>: If the rivalry of the two major parties is handicapped so that there's more circulation among the elites and third parties can win some seats and threaten the duopoly, there'd also be greater transparency. <br>
</blockquote><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">By indirect means, perhaps. Yet we don't know that, as we have so few examples. What I've seen of IRV countries seem to indicate that the rivalry of the two major parties isn't handicapped enough. The major parties stay major parties, and not even the PR counterweight dislodges them to make other parties the new major parties.</span></div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">[endquote]</span></div><div><br></div><div>dlw: So you repeat. The US is on the verge of a significant major realignment of its two major parties, IMO. We'll still have two major parties, but there'll be two different parties. All you need is a catalyst issue that splits both the existing parties. Methinks that the use of PR in "more local" elections to change our country's political dynamics and circumvent $peech by increasing the number of competitive elections could be the issue that brings about a change in regime.<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:And if you want to optimize a certain metric, it's best to directly optimize it, rather than something that is corelated with it. If you want transparency, I think it's better to make the political system transparent than to try to find some change (IRV) that leads to a change (handicapping) that leads to transparency. If any link of that chain fails, the whole thing fails, so the fewer links, the better.</span></div>
<div><br></div><div>dlw:The use of 3-5seat forms of PR in "More local" elections isn't a long chain. That's what I'm betting on far more so than IRV to improve the state of the US's democracy. <font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,204)">dlw</span>: Do voters decide how ad hoc coalitions among multiple parties are worked out after a PR election? Hardly. If coalitions are fluid then it's also hard to get things done and it's possible to blame the other coalition members for problems. One can even bet on becoming a part of the next coalition if this coalition falls apart so long as you keep your base happy. <br>
</blockquote><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:The voters don't directly determine what the coalitions are like. The voters don't veer off from one extreme to another, either, so they have some idea of which coalitions are realistic.</span></div>
<div><br></div><div>dlw: that'd be the kicker. <br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:In the Christian party example, a voter might consider whether to vote for the party, or, if he thinks their compromise is too soft, vote for another more right-leaning party instead. The advantage to voting for a more right-leaning party is that he knows he'll strengthen the particular coalition that he does want; but the disadvantage is that he has to accept that party's position on issues where he agrees more with the more moderate party. He can think about which is better, then express that opinion in terms of his vote. If the party sees that its voters are fleeing, they then know the voters didn't want that compromise after all, and they can reposition themselves.</span></div>
<div><br></div><div>dlw: There's similar dynamics in a political system that doesn't use PR so much. I'm betting they'd be enhanced with the use of 3-5 seat PR in "more local" elections.<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:Or in US terms: with a coalition, a tea-partyist or an Occupier might directly vote for a further right-wing or left-wing party knowing that this party will either make it more likely that the more moderate parties will ally in that direction, or that the further right/left party will serve as a stronger opposition if the other coalition wins. Tea-partyists or Occupiers have little chance to alter the power dynamic directly by voting in the current system, since they would vote Republican or Democratic respectively anyway - the only way they *can* change things is either internally (where the tea party has had quite a bit of success) or by threatening not to vote at all.</span></div>
<div><br></div><div>dlw: I'm guessing that's what a good deal of the Occupiers are going to do: only vote strategically, based onstrategically chosen electoral reforms.</div><div><br></div><div>I'm trying to get some of them to rally around the use of American forms of PR. If they wanted to get revenge on city hall for treating them so badly, they could focus on really local electoral reform, with PR for city council elections, and a two stage mayoral election where the second stage would be by the quasi-PR-elected city council members) <br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:Thus the coalition system is more responsive because the voters can say what part of what would otherwise be one party that they like, instead of just having to take it or leave it. It's not perfect, of course: voting power is not linear and there's a lot of negotiation going on that may turn the power distribution less representative of how the voters voted - but it's better.</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">In a way, the coalition systems behave like the proxy methods that have been discussed here, though of lesser fidelity. In a proxy method, you vote for someone who votes the way you want, and you change your vote if he stops voting the way you want. The alliances then shift because the voters' support of the proxies (or the policies of the different proxies) shift. A coalition does the same, but more coarse-grained, and a major-party system more coarse-grained still.</span></div>
<div><br></div><div>dlw: agreed.<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
dlw wrote:If you have two major parties then the replacement of one with the other being in power is a meaningful incentive to rule well. It can be improved upon, but having two major parties is not inherently bad.<br></blockquote>
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:Not necessarily. Another pattern that might emerge is that one party appeals to one group, the other to the other. Then the first party says "these guys are all corrupt, as you've seen, so vote for us instead". They win and resume their corrupt practices with the second party in opposition. Then the first and second party switches places and the same thing happens with signs reversed. Each party has a solid base to which go the spoils, and an undecided middle who vote for "the other party" (whoever was in opposition the last time around) because they want things to change. No party wants to permanently claim the middle group by becoming more honest, because they gain more by perpetuating the system than by cleaning themselves up.</span></div>
<div>[endquote]</div><div><br></div><div>dlw: But when there are many such bases of single-seat elections, like say 50 states, then it becomes harder for the two parties to keep up the shell game. Cuz, the system in fact doesn't require that the two dominant parties are the same in every state. As such, there's scope for outsiders to come in and threaten the duopoly. <br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:AFAIK, that happened in certain South American states, but I am not completely certain of this. You could also consider the lobbying dynamic in the US weakly related, with each party's base being made of different types of wealthy donors.</span></div>
<div>[endquote]</div><div><br></div><div>dlw: undoubtedly, but this has always held true in part, not in full, and it has not stymied MLKjr-like movements that have succeeded in moving the center in ways that forced both parties to stop whistling dixie...<br>
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:This might be fixed by making the field competitive enough that the model doesn't pay, but I can't find evidence that IRV gives honest parties a chance to unseat the old major parties and become new major parties. At least I know that a multiparty system will give competition, if for no other reason than that it's much harder to buy off ten parties than two.</span></div>
<div><br></div><div>dlw: I do not believe electoral reform can end the fact that "modern democracy" is an unstable mix of "popular democracy" and plutocracy/kleptocracy. But I believe it can bolster "popular democracy" if it is accepted that plutocracy/kleptocracy is going to continue. I stand by the notion that "PR" for "more local" elections(that is set up so third parties can play a constructive role, able to win some seats and play the two major parties off of each other) and IRV3/AV3 for "less local" and multi-stage for the "least local" election would be a potent mix. This is not the Australian model. </div>
<div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> </blockquote>
</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
here's an unfortunate side-effect to the way FairVote has been linking the ranked ballot itself to IRV, as if to imply: "there's one ranked ballot method, and that is IRV: if you want a ranked ballot, you want IRV". To some extent, I think the IRV-supporters among liberal wings of the parties also have this idea. They support the ranked ballot (the idea is obvious! Have a contingency if your main vote doesn't count), and then, because IRV has been marketed so heavily, they say "Ah! I want a ranked ballot, that means IRV!". So those who don't like fairness won't support a ranked ballot anyway, and of those who do, they're supporting the ranked ballot more than they're supporting IRV.</blockquote>
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">(A Washington Senator tried to get the legislature to vote on using the Schulze method, so non-IRV methods aren't entirely unknown. However, it was blocked by the committee leadership. See </span><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Condorcet/" style="color:rgb(17,85,204);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px" target="_blank">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/<u></u>Condorcet/</a><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"> for more about that.)</span></div>
<div>
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
Perhaps this is akin to the extent to which one would expect<br> strategic behavior to appear in single-winner elections.<br></blockquote></blockquote><div>[endquote]</div><div><br></div><div>Yes it is. It's also decent marketing to simplify the choice so the reformers don't get divided and conquered by the Stalwarts. </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>KM: Instability can also occur in places that are transitioning to a<br>
democratic form of government. Early post-Soviet Poland and Hungary<br>
are good examples. I think they settled down, though.<br></blockquote></blockquote><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,204)">dlw</span>: Habits matter more than rules for democracy.<br>
</blockquote><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Maybe one could say that the rules make some paths easier to reach than others, but the habits determine where one actually *does* go.</span></div>
<div><br></div><div>[endquote]</div><div>dlw:That sounds wise. <br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"> dlw wrote: I think we can trust in the politics of Gandhi/MLKjr (and<br>
</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,204)">dlw</span>: IMO, We have just begun to see the effects of such movements and their potential to move the political center that the parties center themselves around.<br>
</blockquote><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:Yes, after a long while, you're getting some change. My point is that this change takes a long while and it doesn't happen at once; in the meantime, you have a period of discontent that builds up. You could say that therefore we can go with the most marketable slight improvement because if it's not good enough, groups outside the political system will reform it later -- but that ignores the long period of bad rule before the group grows strong enough to "not take it anymore" and large enough to actually have an effect.</span></div>
<div>[endquote]</div><div><br></div><div>dlw: I guess that's why I'm psyched up about pushing long and hard for American forms of PR more than any particular single-stage rule. I believe that it will refocus folks to taking care of their own gardens in ways that will trickle up to make important changes possible at the top. <br>
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM: Let's have proportional control, not bang-bang control. It's gentler on the system and reaches the (changing) target more quickly.</span></div>
<div><br></div><div>dlw: Let's move from where the US is right now, not aim for what we think is the sun. <font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,204)">dlw</span> : I agree. This is why I'm pushing for the electoral reform that is most likely to be adopted the soonest.<br>
</blockquote><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:If it isn't good enough, you'll simply have traded off gradualism in the political process in general for gradualism in adopting the election method. Since there are many more decisions not involving elections than there are decisions involving them, the benefits to the smooth transition of the election method is outweighed by the disadvantages in having to wait for another extra-political movement to correct it properly the next time (or for extra-political movements to fix what would otherwise be fixed through the political process).</span></div>
<div><br></div><div>dlw: If a multitude of LTPs are fostered then they'd be a ferment of ideas. We wouldn't have to wait so damn long. <br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:Further, if the method isn't good enough, the political movements may end up moving away from it. "We tried that, it didn't work", as I've said before. FairVote's attempts to link the ranked ballot and IRV (such as by using the name "Ranked Choice Voting") would make such a reversal more likely. "We tried the ranked ballot, and IRV didn't work/just gave us weird results, so forget about it" - something like that.</span></div>
<div><br></div><div>dlw: That isn't a common outcome and we can't assume the ground has been poisoned by a few bad apples. <br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
This would elect a president with broad appeal who will then be<br> sheltered from the partisan rivalry for control of the Senate or<br> House of Representatives.<br></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
If that's what you want, I don't think you need a single-winner<br> method at all. Either have party primaries or use a method like STV<br> in a grand jungle primary, in either case narrowing the field to 6<br>
or 7 candidates. Then use a PR method (probably the same as in the<br> first stage, if that's what you'll use) to narrow it down further to<br> three. Finally, have the electoral college decide. Since the college<br>
itself is small, it doesn't need a voting method - it can just reach<br> a decision in the same way that the House or Senate does.<br></blockquote></blockquote><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
I agree that there are plenty of alternatives for how to do the first two stages. I'm sure some sort of STV will be involved in the state primaries... <br></blockquote><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:Well, that would get around most of our disagreement. If you use a proportional method like STV, then IRV never enters the picture, while you also get the election form you want.</span></div>
<div>[endquote]</div><div>dlw: I meant STV in the first round to pick the 7 finalists. IRV could still be used in the final round...<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br></blockquote>
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
I think it'd be hard for a party to get 3 virtual clones among the 7 finalists if a form of PR is used in the first stage. The strategy would be to get two of your candidates who get along okay among the three finalists so as to max the chances of one of them becoming president. <br>
</blockquote><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">So use PR for the first stage, yes. (Or cut the second stage out altogether.)</span></div>
<div><br></div><div>It's 3 stages. STV in the first, everyone picks their 3 favs of 7 candidates in the 2nd(along with picking three electors for their congressional district), and then voting by proxies until there is a majority of electors in favor of one candidate in the 3rd. <br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"></font><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,204)">dlw</span>: You're forgetting that the US will likely still have a two-party dominated system with a relatively even split between the big two due to the exigencies of having so many single-winner elections and if PR is used, there'd be no need to have quotas. It'd be quite hard for a party to get more than 4 candidates among the seven. <br>
</blockquote><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:What do you mean by "no need to have quotas"? All forms of PR has some type of quota, whether fuzzy (in Sainte-Lague or Webster) or strict (in the Hare or Droop quota).</span></div>
<div><br></div><div>dlw:I meant no official limits on the number of candidates per party. This is because there'd be only 7 "winners" in the 1st stage, which means the typical outcome in a 2 party dominated system might be 3 winners per major party and a minor party candidate. <br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,204)">dlw</span>: It's possible, but it's easier to get it sooner if you play political jujitsu. But I'm fine with local strategies. If another STV movement gained momentum in NY, I'd support it. <br>
</blockquote><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM: It's easier to get something done if you play political jujitsu, but this something is limited by what's well known. Currently, that's FairVote's IRV as well as variants on the same format (contingent vote, three-choices-of-many IRV, etc). If I'm right and IRV won't lead to multipartyism nor weaken the big two enough, then selling IRV is a huge wasted chance. Instead, one should try to show better systems to the friendly politicians. Being politicians, they don't have time to go into detail and find out which of the many ranked methods are good, but that's where the declaration comes into play.</span></div>
<div><br></div><div>dlw: No, that's where the strong push for American forms of PR comes into play. It's simpler than pushing 4 other alternative single-winner/single-stage elections. And now is a great time to push for election rules that'll handicap the rivalry between the two major parties and enable third party candidates to get elected. This can be done without ending two-party domination, which is why that's the path of least resistance. <br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><br></blockquote>
</blockquote></blockquote><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,204)">dlw</span>: sure. But that compensation is what makes the diffs among the rules not so great, and even if the center at the end of the election is not covered that is less bad when one considers that the center is inherently dynamic...<br>
</blockquote><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:If the people change their opinions quickly, then they would tend to land in the middle of one of the parties' areas and the other parties would then ideally adjust their positions to move to the new center (because that's where the voters are); but by the next time, the center would have changed so much that it would land in the middle of some other party's coverage, and so you wouldn't expect to see the artifacts. That is true.</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">On the other hand, if the people change their opinions less quickly, or the way they move can be predicted by the parties, then the clustering happens before the election. The center according to the voters' preferences could be in the middle of a strange region, and as the Yee diagrams show ("Shattered" and "Disjoint"), these regions can be quite large.</span></div>
<div>[endquote]</div><div><br></div><div>dlw: I don't dispute that, I was proffering why we shouldn't focus on getting the right single-winner/single-stage election rule. Methinks LTPs will expedite the adaptation of voters but not make them change their opinions really quickly, since they'd be able to take advantage of their small size to proceed more often by consensus, and make them harder for the major parties to control. <br>
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM: Furthermore, if people change their opinions quickly, their standard deviation might be greater - and a greater sigma amplifies the oddities of IRV. To see this, consider the opposite situation, where the standard deviation is so small everybody agrees on the complete ordering. Then every nondeterministic method that passes the unanimity criterion would elect the same winner.</span></div>
<div>[endquote]</div><div><br></div><div>I don't anticipate wild fluctuations in people's political preferences.</div><div>
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">. </blockquote>
dlw wrote: I doubt Aussies would want to switch to FPP plus PR or FPP alone. I believe the Aussie Prime Minister is derivative of its lower house, which uses IRV. I would not recommend this. The lower house should use a 3-5 seat form of PR and the upper house should have IRV. Single-winner elections are more meaningful in bigger elections where the balance between the biggest parties tend to be stronger. The strength of the US presidency is significant. It makes our prez(single-winner) elections important elections, which is another reason why it's damn hard to end effective two party rule and very important to prevent effective single-party rule.<br>
</blockquote><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:I doubt they wuld want to do that, too. Australia's minor parties would prefer instead to have a change to PR in both houses (e.g. </span><a href="http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/trans-tasman-action-ge-labelling-proportional-representation" style="color:rgb(17,85,204);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px" target="_blank">http://www.greens.org.nz/<u></u>press-releases/trans-tasman-<u></u>action-ge-labelling-<u></u>proportional-representation</a><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">).</span></div>
<div>[endquote]</div><div>dlw: The politics of electoral reform does not support that happening any time soon. They'd be smarter to push for switching the use of PR in between the houses...<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM: I also agree that presidential elections are important. I might even say they are so important that they should be left to people who can elect and recall them at any time and keep them under scrutiny (i.e. parliamentarism), but I know that has absolutely no chance of succeeding.</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Since that's not an option, I think it's very important to get the presidential election right. If the playing field under the new system is still tilted too far to give other presidents a chance, then the lack of alternatives for the presidential position can propagate throughout the system and harden the other branches. Also, the more imbalanced the field, the more important it is to be seen as one of the two "who have a chance", and that takes marketing and the heavy weight of the party structure.</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">Here again we come to the disagreement. I think IRV's field is too tilted to give the required amount of responsiveness to people's votes and that it thus won't lead to enough competition.</span></div>
<div>[endquote]</div><div><br></div><div>dlw: I think we agree a lot on this. I know I wrote about this before above, but 1. STV, 2. 3 of 7, And for the third stage, we could let the Electoral College keep on voting (not unlike the bishops selecting the next pope) until one of the three finalists gets a majority. That should do the trick.<br>
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:Finally, I also agree that in a parliamentary system with multiple chambers with different methods, the PM should be elected from the proportional chamber.</span></div>
<div><br></div><div>dlw: If the multi-stage election of the PM/President were set up right then there'd be no need to have the PM elected from a legislative chamber. But if you did it that way, I would most agree.<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,204)">dlw</span>:That's a way to put it. I think so long as we don't have too many serious candidates in an election and a good number of considerably boundedly rational voters then the purported diffs in values would not make it worth it to push for a seemingly more ambitious election rule. <br>
</blockquote><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:You need at least some serious candidates besides the main two under at least some conditions, because otherwise the main two can just follow the strong pull of money instead of the weak pull of the voters. Beyond that, I can only rephrase that I don't think IRV can handle the domain between enough candidates to give the main two a challenge and too many candidates well. (For that matter, I don't think it can handle the case of many candidates, true multiparty style, either, but you don't consider that a problem.)</span></div>
<div><br></div><div>dlw: I said there'd tend to be up to 4 strong candidates, due to the cost and benefits of running for a single-winner office. I want more uncertainty about who the top 2-3 will be at the onset of an election, not wholly unlike as is happening right now for the Republican party nomination of a presidential candidate. My point is that the purported diffs among single stage, single-winner elections get reduced considerably when this is the case. I do not foresee it changing in the near future in the US and so I'd rather stick with IRV as the front-runner alternative to FPTP. </div>
<div><br></div><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
KM:I look at Australia and at Burlington, and to me, the former<br> doesn't speak very well of the benefits of getting IRV vs Plurality<br> (you might compare parliamentary IRV-Australia to parliamentary<br> FPTP-Britain here); and the latter doesn't speak very well of the<br>
chances of getting it *and* retaining it. In Burlington, IRV was<br> left alone when it elected the CW, as it did in the first election,<br> but then it failed to elect the candidate that was the CW and would<br> have won under almost every other method considered, and the repeal<br>
followed.<br></blockquote></blockquote><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,204)">dlw</span>: You mean after a strong campaign was run against it??? If they'd let well enough alone, the problem would have fixed itself and they'd still have IRV, as opposed to FPP. How many well-heeled folks wage campaigns against FPP after it "spoils" an elections?<br>
</blockquote><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:Note that Burlington IRV survived when it elected the Condorcet winner. I have a little idea of my own regarding this: when the Condorcet winner is elected, for any single group you may rally against the vote because their candidate didn't win, there's another group that preferred the Condorcet winner to that candidate, and the latter group always has a majority.</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">It is then considerably easier to organize a push against a method if it fails to elect the Condorcet winner than if it does elect the CW. Marketing and money probably had its part, but Condorcet failure could well have made it easier.</span></div>
<div>[endquote]</div><div><br></div><div>dlw: It's a matter of degree of emph. I myself think progressives should have rallied hard to keep IRV, since the system undoubtedly would have corrected itself....as stated before my interp was that the election of the Prog was the birth pains of the formation of there being two different dominant major parties in Burlington. <br>
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM: IRV's artifacts didn't stop there, and so gave the campaigners more ammunition. I'd say IRV's failure to elect the Democrat was a good example of its center squeeze, as well - its tendency to pick the wing with the greatest support rather than the center with even greater support because the center's votes are obscured by first preferences for the wings. The Republican candidate was, in a sense, a spoiler because his presence hid the Democrat that would otherwise have won.</span></div>
<div>[endquote]</div><div><br></div><div>dlw: I'm sorry this is where things get ugly among electoral reform advocates. My first thought was to respond that there was strong monetary support for folks to bring up such artifacts, with less than altruistic motivations. <br>
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM: I agree that the campaigners wouldn't have waged their campaign against FPTP. I do think they would have done so if the system had been changed from status quo to FPTP.</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">(And as a correction: Burlington doesn't have FPTP, it has top-two runoff with an odd 40% threshold instead of the more sensible 50%.)</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif">[endquote]</font></div><div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif">dlw: Well that's better than FPTP. <br>
</font>
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"></div><div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:As for the weird results, those can happen when the election is hard to call (close to the border of the cell in the Yee diagram given by candidate positions at the time of election) or voter opinions move slowly (for their sigma) so that the center-squeeze and nonmonotonicity phenomena show up. While not ubiquitous, the latter puts strain on IRV precisely when it has to meet the challenge - when it exits the Plurality domain and minor candidates start to matter.</span></div>
<div><br></div><div>dlw: But a lot of them are not consequential if they're essentially "sour-grapes" phenomena, like with non-monotonicity. If a large number of Republicans had a serious change of heart from supporting their candidate to supporting the Prog candidate at the other end of the spectrum then they might have gotten the Democrat candidate elected. Yes, that could happen theoretically, but it is not by any means a common occurrence.<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
dlw:The big thing with FairVote is that they get people out of the FPTP stupor, which is a major step in the US!!! <br></blockquote><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:FairVote gives by showing people that an alternative to FPTP is possible. They then take away by telling people that IRV is both a good alternative and the only alternative. I don't agree about the former, and the latter is somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy. FairVote markets IRV so heavily that their actions serve to turn IRV into "the only alternative".</span></div>
<div>[endquote]</div><div>dlw: IMO, their marketing campaign is pragmatically based. There are an infinite number of single-winner electoral rules. Y'all on this list have managed to get it down to 4 other alternatives to FPTP. That's a lot for most folks to take in. They've framed the debate the best for the US's FPTP system. Outsiders like you all are muddying the waters and not providing a single clear-cut alternative. Later on, there'll be more scope for using or considering a variety of election rules for different elections. </div>
<div><br></div><div>I'm reminded of rule 13 of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals". </div><div><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(254, 253, 250); font-weight: bold; ">Rules for Power Tactics:</span><br style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(254, 253, 250); ">
<br style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(254, 253, 250); "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(254, 253, 250); ">1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.</span><br style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(254, 253, 250); ">
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(254, 253, 250); ">2. Never go outside the experience of your people.</span><br style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(254, 253, 250); ">
</b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(254, 253, 250); ">3. Whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.</span><br style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(254, 253, 250); ">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(254, 253, 250); ">4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.</span><br style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(254, 253, 250); ">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(254, 253, 250); ">5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.</span><br style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(254, 253, 250); ">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(254, 253, 250); ">6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.</span><br style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(254, 253, 250); ">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(254, 253, 250); ">7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.</span><br style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(254, 253, 250); ">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(254, 253, 250); ">8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.</span><br style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(254, 253, 250); ">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(254, 253, 250); ">9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.</span><br style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(254, 253, 250); ">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(254, 253, 250); ">10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.</span><br style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(254, 253, 250); ">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(254, 253, 250); ">11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.</span><br style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(254, 253, 250); ">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(254, 253, 250); ">12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.</span><br style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(254, 253, 250); ">
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; background-color: rgb(254, 253, 250); ">13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.</span></b></div>
<div><b><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#333333" face="'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><br></span></font></b></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#333333" face="'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, sans-serif"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 18px;"><b>dlw: FairVote has picked the target, replacing FPTP with IRV. And the opponents of electoral reform have done the same thing in their campaigns to undermine IRV so there's no strong agreement among activists on what should be the alternative single-winner(my usage) election rule in the US. </b></span></font><br>
<font class="Apple-style-span" color="#222222" face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></font>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px;margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span style="background-color:rgb(255,255,204)">dlw</span>: Why not endorse pushing hard for American forms of PR in nat'l/state representative elections (and city council elections) and trusting that there'll be more demand for alternatives to FPTP once the rivalry between the two major parties is handicapped and third parties have more potential to spoil more elections...<br>
</blockquote><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:I have no problem pushing for American PR. I get the impression that the single-winner first strategy was chosen because single-winner (single-office) elections are more familiar to voters than are PR elections. Is that wrong? If so, that's another way of handling the disagreement: unify around PR first and leave Condorcet vs IRV for later - but then so should FairVote.</span></div>
<div><br></div><div>dlw:I think a key part of politics is about recognizing the need for hierarchy. FairVote is the leader of electoral reform in the US. I'd rather encourage them to push for IRV3/AV3(at least in bigger elections) and support their push for PR strongly than to ask them to back off from what's been a significant work-horse for them. </div>
<div>
<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">KM:However, even if we wanted to choose that strategy, those who organize voting might at any point ask "well, what of single-winner elections?". Then we can say "pick Approval, Schulze (e.g.), MJ or Range; authorities X, Y, Z, think they're all pretty good". We just have to get X, Y, and Z to sign.</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">If some local governments try any of them and find out that, say, MJ is good enough, then we can later say "X, Y, Z think they're all pretty good, and [county W] says they've had good experience with MJ".</span><br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
[endquote]<br style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">dlw: Why not say, "the use of PR in "more local" elections will create a greater ability for third parties to spoil single-winner elections, thereby increasing the demand for single-winner election reform. Right now, the plurality of support among electoral reform activists is for the use of a form of IRV to replace FPTP. We think that will change later down the road, since there are other options, but we'd rather just stay united in pushing hard for American forms of PR than cause dissent over an issue that is secondary in importance. </div>
<div><br></div><div>dlw</div>