<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Jameson Quinn <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jameson.quinn@gmail.com">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 class="im">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>No, I believe it's alright to have two major parties so long as the duopoly is contested and both major parties must regularly reposition themselves around the de facto center, as created by all of us with a good faith participation in democracy. </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">
<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><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">
<div class="gmail_quote"><div></div></div></blockquote></div><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 even if it were, it will take several elections before the time that the spoiler isn't the first-round winner so that people can realize they're a spoiler.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div>I do not follow.</div></div></div></blockquote>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>The first-round winner in Burlington was the spoiler. Good luck trying to convince his followers to vote for the Democrat next election to avoid another spoiled result. "We should have won last time, and you want us to vote for you losers?"</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>dlw: They weren't the winner in the first round. They just weren't the loser. And they cannot summon a majority of support among Democrats as their 2nd favorite, apparently. </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote"><div class="im">
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>In the US, three-way close races are not common and can be mitigated in other ways, such as are already at work with FPTP. </div>
</blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>I don't want to "mitigate" (that is, try to avoid) them, I want to handle them correctly.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>And there is no <i>correctly </i>in the ongoing experiment called democracy. But when we get caught in notions that there are such, we tend not to experiment as much. </div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>You're talking about adding more epicycles to handle a "problem", I'm the saying that there's no real problem. I don't see that either of those positions is more experimentation-ready than the other.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>dlw: I'm saying the "problem" was/is already being dealt with informally and so the impetus to fix it formally, via an even "better" alternative to FPTP is not that strong.</div>
<div><br></div><div>dlw</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div><br></div><div>Jameson</div></font></span></div>
</blockquote></div><br>