You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #45: Why does IRV lead to 2-party domination? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-05-09 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #34
45. Why does IRV lead to 2-party domination?
Why does IRV lead to 2-party domination?

Because it just does: The three IRV countries: Ireland (mandated in their 1937 constitution), Australia and Malta (and more recently Fiji for a brief period of IRV democracy before its coup) all are 2-party dominated (in IRV seats) despite having many other features in their governments which would seem much more multiparty-genic than the USA with IRV added will ever have. So you can be sure the USA with IRV would be 2-party dominated too.

E.g. "The composition of IRV seatholders in Australia is very biased against third parties: examining all 564 statehouse & federal IRV seats we found only a single one occupied by a third party."
Australian analysts themselves agree that IRV leads to 2-party domination this is not just crazy old me talking. A quote from is IRV "promotes a two-party system to the detriment of minor parties and independents."

Because here is an example election and here is another in which, if some voters honestly order the candidates N>G>B where N=Nader is the "third party" candidate, then N and G both lose, but if those voters dishonestly vote G>N>B or G>B>N, then G wins (a better result in their view). In these example elections, just like under the present plurality system, voting Nader is therefore strategically foolish. A possible reason why the Australian House remains 2-party dominated after 80+ years of IRV is that these kinds of elections happen often enough so that strategic voters feel logically justified in thus "betraying" Nader. Hence: the third parties suffer a tremendous disadvantage, hence they die off. And hence voters observing this year after year realize the third parties have no chance, which justifies their strategic vote-exaggeration/betrayal decision all the more. (Who cares if you betray N if he had no chance anyhow? It is worth it if it increases the chance G will win or so they reason.) Result: Vicious cycle entrenched 2-party domination third parties die.

We do not know that this is the actual reason, but we will say that it would be entirely logical if it were; the only way it is not the actual reason is because of the insufficient-logic of Australian voters. If we instead assume more-mentally-challenged voters who don't know or can't understand this, then they will likely just give the two-most-likely-to-win candidates top & bottom rankings without worrying about whether that really is logical or not to "max out their vote's impact." That is intuitive and requires no thought at all (but nevertheless is supported by deeper analysis) and with IRV will prevent a third-party candidate from ever winning.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
  -New Yorkers should be alert - new threat to Lever Machines WillYourVoteBCounted  Jan-05-09 12:00 AM   #0 
  - More: IRV is a well intended reform, but doesn't meet its promise.  WillYourVoteBCounted   Jan-05-09 12:15 AM   #1 
  - Other nations are using IRV . . . let's look at their actual experiences . . .  defendandprotect   Jan-05-09 12:19 AM   #3 
     - I live in the foreign country of North Carolina, and IRV is threatening our verified voting law  WillYourVoteBCounted   Jan-05-09 12:22 AM   #4 
     - This is an old problem, having nothing to do with IRV --  defendandprotect   Jan-05-09 12:29 AM   #7 
        - How a 2007 IRV experiment violated several of NC election laws  WillYourVoteBCounted   Jan-05-09 01:09 AM   #13 
           - But WHO violated your laws ...  defendandprotect   Jan-05-09 03:00 PM   #24 
     - Scotland traded hand counted paper ballots for STV (a form of IRV)  WillYourVoteBCounted   Jan-05-09 12:24 AM   #5 
        - IRV has nothing to do with computer counting ....  defendandprotect   Jan-05-09 12:31 AM   #8 
           - did you read the OP? IRV incentivizes computerized voting machines  WillYourVoteBCounted   Jan-05-09 01:02 AM   #12 
           - That's an OPINION ...  defendandprotect   Jan-05-09 03:04 PM   #25 
              - Thats an opinion of an internationally reknowned Computer Scientist  WillYourVoteBCounted   Jan-05-09 07:36 PM   #44 
                 - It's still OPINION . . . and you're on ignore . . .  defendandprotect   Jan-05-09 11:49 PM   #55 
                    - in your case, the phrase "epic fail" comes to mind  OnTheOtherHand   Jan-06-09 07:44 PM   #63 
           - IRV just happens to incentivize computerized counting  WillYourVoteBCounted   Jan-05-09 01:10 AM   #14 
              - Voters were confused by "butterfly ballot" ...that's why they were banned ....  defendandprotect   Jan-05-09 03:10 PM   #26 
                 - Electionline: "Ranked-Choice Voting and Flawed Ballots Tax San Francisco's Election"  WillYourVoteBCounted   Jan-05-09 07:14 PM   #40 
                 - San Francisco Grand Jury Report: Instant runoff not understood by voters and poll workers  WillYourVoteBCounted   Jan-05-09 07:17 PM   #41 
                    - Are you repeating this . . .  defendandprotect   Jan-05-09 11:47 PM   #54 
  - IRV can be paper and pen . . . doesn't have to be computer . . .  defendandprotect   Jan-05-09 12:17 AM   #2 
  - Yes it could be but it requires software to count it - hence bye bye lever machines  WillYourVoteBCounted   Jan-05-09 12:26 AM   #6 
  - The problem is the dishonesty of HAVA not IRV . . .  defendandprotect   Jan-05-09 12:31 AM   #9 
     - HAVA doesn't require voting machines  WillYourVoteBCounted   Jan-05-09 12:59 AM   #11 
        - Did I read ALL of HAVA ... No ...  defendandprotect   Jan-05-09 02:43 PM   #22 
           - where did you read that HAVA required "voting machines"?  WillYourVoteBCounted   Jan-05-09 05:26 PM   #30 
              - That's right.  Wilms   Jan-05-09 09:27 PM   #47 
                 - To be fair . . . it's a program which offers duplicity/trickery . . .  defendandprotect   Jan-06-09 12:03 AM   #56 
                    - Fine. I'll agree. "most interpertations are that it pushes states/counties to electronic voting..."  Wilms   Jan-06-09 12:49 AM   #60 
                       - HAVA didn't require ditching punch cards either  WillYourVoteBCounted   Jan-06-09 06:14 PM   #61 
                          - From what I recall in recent reading ...  defendandprotect   Jan-06-09 06:59 PM   #62 
                             - Read again. HAVA did not ban punch cards  WillYourVoteBCounted   Jan-07-09 11:11 AM   #64 
                             - please provide a citation for what you read  WillYourVoteBCounted   Jan-07-09 11:13 AM   #65 
  - please tell us how IRV is counted in the United States and Scotland  WillYourVoteBCounted   Jan-05-09 01:20 AM   #16 
     - Please explain ...  defendandprotect   Jan-05-09 03:14 PM   #27 
        - do you know anything about IRV, like how it is counted?  WillYourVoteBCounted   Jan-05-09 05:27 PM   #31 
           - How about ...  defendandprotect   Jan-05-09 06:27 PM   #33 
              - IRV makes it easier to rig the election or just flat out miscount it  WillYourVoteBCounted   Jan-05-09 06:48 PM   #36 
                 - Baloney . .. that's Dem/Repug propaganda cause they don't want change ...  defendandprotect   Jan-05-09 11:42 PM   #52 
  - What makes you want to cling to lever machines?  frazzled   Jan-05-09 12:33 AM   #10 
  - Learn why NY wants to cling to lever machines:  Bill Bored   Jan-05-09 03:28 AM   #18 
  - Agreed.... lever machines may be harder to fix ...  defendandprotect   Jan-05-09 03:21 PM   #28 
     - Don't take HAVA money, except to provide accessibility.  Bill Bored   Jan-05-09 07:23 PM   #43 
        - Re your last paragraph . . .  defendandprotect   Jan-05-09 11:46 PM   #53 
  - like clinging to their guns and religion?  WillYourVoteBCounted   Jan-05-09 11:45 AM   #19 
  - I ask again: what is wrong with a good (computerized) optical scanning of paper ballots?  frazzled   Jan-05-09 01:11 AM   #15 
  - NY is way ahead of the game!  Bill Bored   Jan-05-09 03:15 AM   #17 
     - I am sorry ...  frazzled   Jan-05-09 12:10 PM   #20 
        - please answer these questions so you can prove optical scan is better than levers:  WillYourVoteBCounted   Jan-05-09 12:33 PM   #21 
        - You can have PAPER with any system ....  defendandprotect   Jan-05-09 03:22 PM   #29 
        - A possibility to recount by hand? When and where?  Bill Bored   Jan-05-09 07:06 PM   #38 
        - "the possibility to recount by hand"  Wilms   Jan-05-09 09:33 PM   #48 
  - I think we had best be "warned" that resistance to IRV comes mainly ...  defendandprotect   Jan-05-09 02:53 PM   #23 
  - Dr. Rebecca Mercuri: IRV leads to "potential gaming" of the ballot  WillYourVoteBCounted   Jan-05-09 05:30 PM   #32 
  - I think we all have open minds about elections ...  defendandprotect   Jan-05-09 06:36 PM   #34 
     - Libertarian Reform Caucus: "Anyone for a Bullet in the Foot? Instant Runoff!"  WillYourVoteBCounted   Jan-05-09 07:04 PM   #37 
     - Why does IRV lead to 2-party domination?  WillYourVoteBCounted   Jan-05-09 07:40 PM   #45 
        - Without doubt, the 2-party monopoly wants to keep lock on elections . . .  defendandprotect   Jan-05-09 11:40 PM   #51 
           - without a doubt, IRV entrenches the 2-party monopoly  WillYourVoteBCounted   Jan-06-09 12:24 AM   #59 
  - Australian Politics: "promotes a two-party system...."  WillYourVoteBCounted   Jan-05-09 07:19 PM   #42 
  - For those not familiar with the decades of computer steals ...  defendandprotect   Jan-05-09 06:39 PM   #35 
     - "IRV.. not summable.... makes it more susceptible to tampering"  WillYourVoteBCounted   Jan-05-09 07:07 PM   #39 
     - That's Dem/Repug propaganda -- they sure don't want CHOICE ....!!!  defendandprotect   Jan-05-09 11:36 PM   #49 
        - and you support IRV which incentivizes computerized voting  WillYourVoteBCounted   Jan-06-09 12:23 AM   #58 
     - "The complexity of IRV ...provides increased opportunities for wholesale fraud or malfunction"  WillYourVoteBCounted   Jan-05-09 07:42 PM   #46 
        - The opponents of IRV are Dems and Repugs who don't want voters . . .  defendandprotect   Jan-05-09 11:38 PM   #50 
           - Attack the messenger because you have no facts  WillYourVoteBCounted   Jan-06-09 12:23 AM   #57 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC