> > > If FairVote continues on its marketing of IRV and we do nothing, yes, IRV > is more likely to be adopted than Condorcet, at least in the short term. > > I'd like to expand on Kristofer's point just a bit. The fact is, it's not true that we're going to do nothing. I see basically 3 possibilities: 1. Things continue as they are today; IRV has limited and inadequate wins, mixed with setbacks. 2. Fairvote's success goes on an increasing curve, and at some point IRV reaches a tipping point and becomes commonly-used in countries where it hadn't been before. 3. Some other organization pushes some other system(s), and reaches a tipping point.
I definitely see why any unbiased observer would say that 1 is more probable than 2 or 3; but I see no reason to believe that 2 is more probable than 3. In the US, FairVote had a very good chance with the 2000 election, and got inadequate mileage out of that. So sure, 3 means a lot of work for people like me, but I personally see it as more likely than 2. The upshot is, sure, IRV might be more likely to be adopted, but only in the inadequate sense of 1. If 2 or 3 are necessary, then I'd rather throw my weight behind the one I honestly believe in. Jameson
---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info