On 02 Dec 2011 13:05:04 -0800, David L. Wetzell wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>
> There is a fundamental difference between two-party dominance, which will
> probably not change any time soon, and a two-party duopoly. 45%, 40%, 8%,
> 5%... is dominance
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
> There is a fundamental difference between two-party dominance, which will
> probably not change any time soon, and a two-party duopoly. 45%, 40%, 8%,
> 5%... is dominance; 51% 47% 1%... is duopoly. Any system which gives bad
> enough results w
There is a fundamental difference between two-party dominance, which will
probably not change any time soon, and a two-party duopoly. 45%, 40%, 8%,
5%... is dominance; 51% 47% 1%... is duopoly. Any system which gives bad
enough results when there are more than two parties will be a two party
duopol
-- Forwarded message --
From: MIKE OSSIPOFF
To:
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 19:19:28 +
Subject: [EM] IRV's adequacy depends on a two-party system
David Wetzel said:
s for center-squeezing, that's not really a problem in the US as a
whole...
Third parties are too small and scatte
