What kind of evidence would convince you to change your mind about IRV? How about on IRV3/AV3 resolving most of IRV's problems? (I believe that using 3-slot+unapproved ballots and implicit approval to run approval/runoff, which I guess in your notation is IRV3/AV2, would, but don't agree that IRV3/AV3 would).<div>
<br></div><div>Obviously, if your belief in IRV being good enough weren't falsifiable, it would be just faith. I'm sure that's not the case.</div><div><br></div><div>Jameson</div><div><br></div><div> <br><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
2011/11/22 David L Wetzell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wetzelld@gmail.com">wetzelld@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Jameson Quinn <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jameson.quinn@gmail.com" target="_blank">jameson.quinn@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>2011/11/22 David L Wetzell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wetzelld@gmail.com" target="_blank">wetzelld@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Jameson Quinn <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jameson.quinn@gmail.com" target="_blank">jameson.quinn@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>2011/11/22 David L Wetzell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wetzelld@gmail.com" target="_blank">wetzelld@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Jameson Quinn <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jameson.quinn@gmail.com" target="_blank">jameson.quinn@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>2011/11/22 David L Wetzell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:wetzelld@gmail.com" target="_blank">wetzelld@gmail.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Aye, and that still looks better than a two-stage with a 40% cutoff(what's in place now) or FPTP. </blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>Yes.</div><div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>If they had stuck with IRV in Burlington, the perceived flaws would have worked themselves out.</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>How? By people returning to lesser-evil voting, but possibly between progressives and democrats? That's not a solution in my book. </div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div><div>The two major-party equilibrium would be centered around the de facto center. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>So you're happy with the Democrat/Republican choice?</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>No, I believe it's alright to have two major parties so long as the duopoly is contested </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>How would a post-Kiss Burlington duopoly be contested?</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>dlw: IDK and I don't need to know. The ways new parties can be created or old parties readjusted are too many. </div><div class="im"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>and both major parties must regularly reposition themselves around the de facto center, </div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>That only works for issues that make it onto the agenda; and it works as well for D/R on a national scale as it would for D/P on a Burlington scale. (Yes, D/P would be a better local fit for Burlington than D/R; but not better than D/R is nationally.) </div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>dlw: More such issues wd make it onto the agenda more often if P's cd be among the top 2 in "more local" elections at the nationwide level. </div><div class="im">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br></div><div>To my view, this is unacceptably bad.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>dlw: You're failing to take into account how much of the dysfunctional behavior of the Ds and Rs is due to their mutual conflicting desire to get permanent majorities over the other. If you take this possibility away, you change their incentives to make cooperating more useful. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Both major parties can be reincarnated from their current states. </div><div>Once, we start balancing our use of single-winner and multi-winner elections, things'll start changing more often and we won't get stuck in a rut like the US has been for 40 so years due to cultural wars wedge issues(easier to reframe effectively when third party outsiders are given more voice) and the increased agressiveness of $peech (which is easy when there are so few competitive elections and third parties are not given a constructive role by the use of FPTP for almost all elections) and low voter turnout (also known to be increased by PR, it's not known whether alts to IRV will have a comparable effect). </div>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div><br></div><div>dlw</div></font></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>