This thread now has 50 messages, back-and-forth. I'll try to make this my last word on the subject.<div><br></div><div>Basically, the bottom line for me is that I trust real evidence more than I trust theory, but I need to find room to take hopeful action. That's not a matter of building an elaborate model of reality in my head and then repeatedly claiming that I'm a pragmatist; it's a matter of trying to make my questions as simple as possible, answering them with evidence, and then finding the shortest path of least resistance to hope.</div>
<div><br></div><div>What does the evidence tell us?</div><div><br></div><div>A. Evidence about the status quo says:</div><div>1. Plurality is a theoretically-horrible system, with no redeeming features.</div><div>2. Single-member districts have certain advantages, but also serious problems; I'd say that on the whole the problems dominate. (?)</div>
<div>3. In practice, the problems with both plurality and single-member districts seem to culminate in two-party domination.</div><div>4. It takes a lot of money to get elected in the current system.</div><div>5. Status quo politics are badly broken.</div>
<div>6. It's likely that 3 is one main cause of 4, and that 3 and 4 together are the main causes of 5. Thus there is a need to change either plurality, single-member districts, or both. (?)</div><div><br></div><div>B. Evidence about IRV says:</div>
<div>1. There's been a well-organized and decently-funded national campaign for IRV. I'm speakin of course about Fairvote, whose spending on IRV over its history has probably totalled millions of dollars.</div><div>
1a. It's had real successes</div><div>1b. It's still fallen widely short of the progress that is needed.</div><div>2. Even in places that were initially favorable to IRV, and have tried it, opposition is persistent. (This includes Australia, where reputable polls have found majorities favoring changing the system.)</div>
<div>3. IRV pathologies can happen in real life.</div><div>4. Especially when pathologies happen, IRV is subject to repeal.</div><div>5. IRV does not seem to end two-party domination; certainly it does not do so reliably. (?)</div>
<div>6. In a hard-fought national referendum in the UK, where both sides had significant funding and organization, IRV lost resoundingly.</div><div><br></div><div>C. Evidence about other single-winner systems says:</div>
<div>
1. Non-IRV voting activists are, as a whole, fractious and disorganized.</div><div>2. It is very difficult to get all voting reform advocates to agree on a single best system.</div><div>2a. It's especially difficult to get theorists to support IRV in spite of its theoretical flaws. (?)</div>
<div>3. It is less difficult to get reform advocates and theorists to agree that a set of systems are all better than plurality.</div><div>4. Other single-winner reforms haven't been implemented much.</div><div>5. Therefore, there is little evidence of what would happen after they were implemented, although we can theorize. (?)</div>
<div><br></div><div>D. Evidence about PR says:</div><div>1. PR can end two-party domination.</div><div>2. With PR, there can still be fewer competitive elections and more safe seats than voters would like to see. (?)</div>
<div>3. When combined with a parliamentary system, PR can lead to instability.</div><div>3a. But there are reasons to believe that those problems would not generalize to a presidential system. (?)</div><div>4. PR is a more-radical change than single-winner reform.</div>
<div>4a. It may be harder to promote to an American audience.</div><div>4b. It may be harder to sell to politicians who have won in the status quo.</div><div>5. PR systems can be tuned to optimize various advantages, but it's hard to find a system which is perfect in all ways (simple, local, voter-centric, doesn't require ranking dozens of candidates) (?)</div>
<div><br></div><div>There's plenty of reasons for pessimism in the above. David seems to find his optimism by emphasizing points B1a, C1, C4, D1, and D5, and giving (plausible) counterarguments for points B1b, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, C2a (though he backed off from a bet), D4a, and D4b. That's 9 points he's trying to overcome (though since B4 is little more than B2+B3, I guess it may be more like 8 than 9). </div>
<div><br></div><div>I on the other hand think that the path of least resistance is to emphasize C3 as a way to overcome C1, C2, and C4. I think that it's better to fight reality on 2-3 points than on 8-9, no matter how plausible the arguments that the 8 or 9 battles are winnable.</div>
<div><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>One specific response:</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div><div class="im"><div>JQ: </div></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div><div class="im"><div>3. Some other organization pushes some other system(s), and reaches a tipping point.</div>
</div><div>
dlw:IOW, they need to reinvent what FairVote's been working hard to build up for some time...</div></div></blockquote><div>Yep. It's a lot of work. If voting reform were an easy task, we (and I include Fairvote in that "we") would have won already.</div>
<div><br></div><div>JQ</div></div></div>