2011/11/22 David L Wetzell <wetze...@gmail.com> > > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.qu...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> >> 2011/11/22 David L Wetzell <wetze...@gmail.com> >> >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> So you're happy with the Democrat/Republican choice? >> > > No, I believe it's alright to have two major parties so long as the > duopoly is contested >
How would a post-Kiss Burlington duopoly be contested? > and both major parties must regularly reposition themselves around the de > facto center, > That only works for issues that make it onto the agenda; and it works as well for D/R on a national scale as it would for D/P on a Burlington scale. (Yes, D/P would be a better local fit for Burlington than D/R; but not better than D/R is nationally.) To my view, this is unacceptably bad. > as created by all of us with a good faith participation in democracy. > Jameson
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
