On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.qu...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > 2011/11/22 David L Wetzell <wetze...@gmail.com> > >> Aye, and that still looks better than a two-stage with a 40% >> cutoff(what's in place now) or FPTP. > > > Yes. > > >> If they had stuck with IRV in Burlington, the perceived flaws would have >> worked themselves out. >> > > How? By people returning to lesser-evil voting, but possibly between > progressives and democrats? That's not a solution in my book. > The two major-party equilibrium would be centered around the de facto center. > > And even if it were, it will take several elections before the time that > the spoiler isn't the first-round winner so that people can realize they're > a spoiler. > I do not follow. > > > >> In the US, three-way close races are not common and can be mitigated in >> other ways, such as are already at work with FPTP. >> > > I don't want to "mitigate" (that is, try to avoid) them, I want to handle > them correctly. > And there is no *correctly *in the ongoing experiment called democracy. But when we get caught in notions that there are such, we tend not to experiment as much. dlw > > Jameson > >
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
