Re: [EM] IRV vs. Plurality

[Dgamble997]

Bart Ingles wrote in part:

>On the question of IRV vs Plurality, I would like to first point out
>that pure first-past-the-post is not really the norm for U.S.
>elections. For nonpartisan local elections, the question should really
>be IRV vs. Runoff. And for partisan state and federal elections, we
>generally have primary and general elections, which are similar in
>effect to runoffs.

A good system should be a good system anywhere in the world. The primary system is pretty much unique to the U.S. The results of elections in Britain where, until recently, every election at every level was a plurality, first-past-the-post election demonstrate how unfair and unrepresentative plurality is.

>(snip) I don't share this pessimism. I think that so long as the various
>factions debate honestly, this can only improve public awareness of
>voting systems. Even contentious debate will have the effect of
>educating the public, which in the long run is more important than
>implementing a method which is acknowledged below to be a mere stepping
>stone to better methods.

Contentious debate can easily turn into all-out war resulting in the mutual destruction of all sides. "Unity is strength" and "divide and conquer" are not empty phrases.

>The only large-scale demonstration of IRV we have is Australia's lower
>house, where district elections are virtually all bipartisan (there are
>apparently three parties represented in the legislature, but only two of
>the three are prominent in any given district). This in spite of the
>fact that Australia has a strong multi-party system fed by proportional
>representation in its upper house

For an example of a three party IRV election ( the Queensland state election of 1998 where Pauline Hanson's anti-immigrant One Nation Party challenged the Labour party and Liberal/National coalition ) visit Adam Carr's Electoral Archive:

http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/states/qldindex.shtml

12 out of 76 members of the Australian Senate belong to parties other than National, Liberal or Labour.

David Gamble