So Condorcet gives 2 of the 3 parties an incentive to "go 2D" in this example, while IRV only gives 1 party an incentive to "go 2D" in this model.
Doesn't that constitute a strong argument for Condorcet, given your views?
Empirically, we know that politics tend to remain 1-D, with two dominant parties, in IRV. Maybe Condorcet would be different. My intuition, and your example. both suggest that Condorcet would lead to parties offering different permutations of "left" and "right" viewpoints.
What interests me is that, based on what I hear of politics in other countries (which is admittedly not a lot), it seems like most countries have some sort of left-right division. The factions may not have the same respective stances as the American left and right, but that sort of division still seems to stand. Even PR doesn't seem to do much to cure this problem.
PR, if adopted in the USA with large districts, would surely lead to some Libertarian representatives.
Part of the problem is that people are so accustomed to certain views being packaged together, that they tend to go with the whole lot or none of them. Call it political socialization, or intellectual laziness; your choice.
-Adam
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
