Comment Re:A far cry from instant runoff/ranked voting (Score 1) 416
The coalition is effectively a single party, and we have independents in the US Congress even with Plurality/FPTP voting. IRV definitely has maintained two-party domination in Australia. That's not because of the nature of politics is dichotomous. It's not. In most of the 27 or so countries that use an ordinary delayed runoff, there are three or more viable parties, even in single-seat races (this is party of Duverger's Law). Plurality Voting and IRV seem to obviously maintain two-party domination because of tactical exaggeration. Here are some reasons why Top-Two Runoff may be different: http://scorevoting.net/TTRvIRVreasons.html
When I said this was an objective statistical fact, I was talking about the incentive to vote insincerely. There are two distinct issues here. One is whether IRV incentivizes sincere voting (whether a sincere vote is the best vote for a rational voter). The other is whether voters, regardless of whether they are aware of that, actually do strategically exaggerate.
The page I linked to was primarily about proving the former. That IRV encourages voters to rank their favorite major party candidate in first place (or favorite "frontrunner" in non-partisan races) is statistically sound.
As for whether voters actually do vote insincerely, I put more stock into the research we have done over the past for years at The Center for Election Science than in a wikipedia entry which most assuredly has been heavily tuned by FairVote, a highly dishonest pro-IRV organization.
The fact is, I live in a city that actually uses IRV, and smart people I talk to all seem to generally assume that exaggerating helps. They could easily understand IRV if I explained the elimination process to them, but they just haven't learned about it because they probably find it to be an incredibly boring subject.
Also, looking at ballot statistics, we see clear evidence of tactical distortion. The Princeton math Ph.D. who co-founded The Center for Range Voting puts it simply:
"For example, the Socialists won in Spain and were thought to be going to win (but did not) in France. Meanwhile in the USA and Australia they got epsilon. Are the French just 1000+ times more socialist in their hearts than the Americans etc? No. Maybe 2 or 3 times more. But the rest is just distortion of democracy.
You know, I am not talking about a minor hard to discern effect here. I am talking about a factor of 1000 distortion in democracy, right in front of your nose."
Lastly, I called up the Australian Green Party offices last June, and this is what I posted about the conversation on our group's discussion list:
Get this. I just called the Australian Green Party here:
02 6140-3217The guy said one of the most common calls he gets is, "why should I vote for the Green Party, when that's just wasting my vote?"
Why would people ask such a bizarre question, since they have the preferential system (Instant Runoff Voting)?
He explains, there's widespread voter miseducation on the preferential system. And the two major parties are happy to help that along by doing whatever possible to keep it obfuscated.
People even are confused about the above-the-line voting. They ask the GP how they're "preferencing" in House elections. They explain, "YOU are making the choice on your ballot, not us -- it's not above-the-
line voting."And they get these calls frequently. He explained it was one of the most common calls he gets.
There are 150 seats in the house. I meant to say, 564 seats in all AU IRV legislative bodies. Sorry for the mistake.
Australian House of Representatives 150 seats
New South Wales Legislative Assembly 93 seats
Queensland Legislative Assembly 89 seats
South Australian House of Assembly 47 seats
Tasmanian Legislative Council 15 seats
Victorian Legislative Assembly 88 seats
Western Australian Legislative Assembly 57 seats
Northern Territory Legislative Assembly 25 seats