In fact let me elaborate. Although my critics claim it is not clear I have really shown Condorcet methods must lead to 2-party domination (I think it is clear, except I admit that the winning-votes + equalities-permitted enhancements of condorcet seem to permit Condorcet to perhaps escape from such domination) I think they and everybody SHOULD at least WORRY that it will.
The trouble with complicated-to-analyse systems like advanced condorcet methods, is it is very hard to be sure of essential questions like this. Quite possibly this question cannot be convincingly answered in any manner short of trying it in several countries for 80 years. A huge computer sim of "people" and "parties" could try, but any such simulation obviously will be attackable and unconvincing. So. Given this, suppose you are a USA third party. (Assume optimistically that such a party actually has a brain.) Do you want to push Condorcet methods? If they lead to 2-party domination, then hell no. If not, maybe yes. So it is a gamble with your life. Do you want to push IRV? Definitely not: definitely leads to 2-party domination (3 countries, 60-90 years each). Plurality? Hell no. Do you want to push range? Yes - experiments I already did with real voters indicate it clearly will help your party hugely (and far more so than approval voting). So that is why we have to unify behind range: tactically, we need the troops the third parties can supply. If those third parties' leadership is brought into contact with the data, they will agree to enodrse range. The problem is merely to force that... This is not the only ingredient of my tactical plan (I also want to co-opt the major parties...) but it seems an essential ingredient. Another ingredient of the tactical plan is the Iowa 08 caucuses. I predict these caucuses will involve a comparatively large fraction of honest voters and a fairly large # of candidates (10). That is precisely the regime where range exhibits a large quality advantage over approval voting. So again, tactically, pushing range, and not approval, is the right move. Now suppose you are a fire-breathing Condorcet advocate who is pretty confident it is a better system than range. I STILL claim you should support range, because I believe the best tactic for you to try to get the world to adopt condorcet, is first to "get them in the mood" by adopting range, then they'll be more willing to accept condorcet at that future point. Right now, I am confident is no hope of that happening in just 1 stage because of my polling experience... wds ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
