Dave Ketchum said: >> 1) Runoff methods (of which IRV and 2-step are the most common) >> aren't nearly as effective as PR for promoting multi-party >> competition. Australia and Louisiana come to mind. Although Louisiana >> uses 2-step runoff for state-wide races, when there are only 3 >> candidates with significant support 2-step is roughly equivalent to >> IRV. I haven't seen many 3rd-party governors or Senators in that >> state. ... > I do not see 3 candidates as a worthy special case:
I just mean that Louisiana is currently using a method that is equivalent to IRV in many cases. Despite this fact, Louisiana isn't exactly a hot-bed of third-party activity. This is negative evidence against the notion that IRV will promote multi-party democracy. Of course, a single case isn't conclusive, but it can be put in a larger context. >> 4) Just as the party has left open a variety of PR options, the party > >> should leave open a variety of single-winner options. Let there be a >> debate in the marketplace of ideas. > > > We seem agreed that there are a variety of PR options of more or less > equal value. > > Seems like enough is known about single-winner options to reject the > worst, such as plurality. The point is that in multi-winner races the LP has just endorsed PR without specifying a method. With single-winner races the LP has endorsed a specific method (IRV) without hearing the case for other methods (approval, Condorcet, etc.). A party that believes in a competitive marketplace of ideas shouldn't settle on a single method until more debate has occured witin the party. Alex ---- For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em