> The only situations when PR is not appropriate is when PR is not > possible. In those instances ( for a single position) we are left with > trying to use the least bad single seat method.
Here you say (and I agree) that proportionality is not a concern when discussing offices that, by their nature, should be single-winner (e.g. executive offices). > Monotonicity is undoubtedly a desirable feature of an electoral method. > I do however feel that no method can be perfect and that other features > are more important ( proportional representation of parties, > proportional representation of opinion, maximum freedom of voter > choice regarding the individuals who represent you, etc). Here you say that proportionality considerations are more important than monotonicity. That may be a valid statement in regard to STV and other non-monotonic PR methods, but IRV is a single-seat method. Single-winner methods cannot be proportional, so proportionality isn't even on the table as an issue when we're discussing IRV. So you can't just dismiss concerns over monotonicity by saying "proportionality is more important" if we're talking about using IRV for _executive_ offices. Now, you might dismiss concerns over monotonicity by arguing that the problem occurs only rarely, or by arguing that IRV's handling of first choices is a virtue that outweighs monotonicity concerns. We could debate those questions. However, here's a thought about IRV and proportionality anyway: In the US, it is likely that IRV will be implemented as a reform long before PR. IRV might result in more third-party candidates getting 10% or more of the first-place vote in legislative races, a lot better than the 0.5%-5% that a lot of third-party candidates get right now in American plurality elections. Even if third parties don't win many legislative races, people will probably take notice of this, and it might get people thinking about the need for PR. Going a step further, a situation where Condorcet gives a party 70% of the seats for 20% of the first-place votes might cause even more people to contemplate the need for PR. So although the ideal situation is obviously to start electing legislators via PR, single-winner reform might spark more people to at least contemplate PR by making third parties more visible. Remember, when there are only 2 parties, and the majority party draws the districts, the defects of single-member legislative districts are less obvious to the casual observer, because the majority party got a majority of the seats. Just a little silver lining there... Alex ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
