On 2/24/07, Michael Ossipoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jan Kok wrote: > > >The statistical evidence at http://rangevoting.org/TTRvIRVstats.html > >seems pretty good that IRV leads to two party domination in IRV > >elections, while (delayed) top two runoff tends to lead to a strong > >multiparty system. > > > >Why do those two methods, which seem strategically quite similar, lead > >to such different results? > > In 2-balloting top-2 Runoff, the CW can't lose if s/he comes in 1st or 2nd > in the first balloting.
Ok. How does that lead away from 2 party domination? Can you show a scenario where voter incentives are different for IRV and TTR? > > You said: > > >Most IRV supporters in the US have no clue that voting their favorite > >1st can ever hurt them. From my limited discussions with Australians, > >it seems most of them have no idea either. > > I reply: > > My discussions with Australians suggests the opposite. They told me that > it's difficult for small parties to get 1st place votes, because voters > don't want to waste their vote. Voters want to vote one of the big-2 > parties' candidates in 1st place, for strategic reasons. Do they know > something about IRV that American IRVists don't know? :-) > > One Australian I spoke with even told me that she herself had insincerely > voted a top-2 candidate iln 1st place, insincerely downranking her favorite. Are there any Australian web sites, blogs, newspaper or magazine editorials, etc. that criticize IRV? http://australianpolitics.com/voting/systems/preferential.shtml is not strongly critical but does say "It [IRV] promotes a two-party system to the detriment of minor parties and independents." I've asked the author of that site why he said that, but haven't received a response. Cheers, - Jan ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info