Reply #18: I think you need to explain this because your statement isn't making sense to me...

[cascadiance]

Now I'm assuming your preferred candidate is your "first place candidate".

Now if you pick this person "first", then there's no way that it can be worse than the present system, since if that person finishes in the top two, you vote would count for him/her the same way it does today, no matter what. So you YOURSELF are NOT hurting him/her by voting them as your first place choice.

Now, if you're referring to your "preferred candidate" as someone who you would rather win compared to your worst choice, but who isn't your first choice and you vote for as your second choice (but might vote for that person today if you figured he/she was the only one who had a chance), then that's a different matter. But by definition, your second choice candidate isn't your "preferred" candidate over all of the rest of them. It is who you favor over the other candidates in the field other than your first choice but not someone you feel is doing the best of the field of representing your interests or you'd be making them your first selection.

What are the possible outcomes if you vote for third party candidate 1st, and your "lesser of two evil" candidate 2nd?

1) your third party candidate doesn't wind up in the top two, and your lesser of two evil candidates finishes in the top two and gets your vote. This IS better for your second choice candidate than if you voted for someone like Nader and didn't have your vote count for someone like Gore if you didn't vote a second choice selection. If you would have voted for Gore instead, then it really isn't any different an outcome.
2) If your third party candidate does wind up in the top two (which he/she likely wouldn't in today's situation) then yes, your second choice likely finishes out of the top two, but that is WHAT YOU WANTED. Now if your third party candidate still loses, then likely both your second and first place choices would have lost under today's rules too. But at least your third party candidate had more of a chance at winning.
3) IF your third party candidate actually wins, then they are HELPED by this system where they wouldn't have likely gotten enough votes under the present system to win.

And as I noted in my previous response here, it isn't just about "who wins", but how each of your first and second choices try to appeal to you for your vote. With the present system, your second choice (from the two major parties), doesn't have any motivation to campaign to you, since he figures that you'll be pragmatic and ignore your first choice and vote for him/her anyway and not want the other of the two big parties candidates to win. But if he/she has to worry about third party that you actually find MORE appealing to yourself than he/she and have more of a chance of either winning or forcing he or she to lose, he or she will be more responsive to those like you that are looking for representation and have more realistic options than you have under the present system.

So even if the same two parties "get the top two spots" and give the ILLUSION that nothing's changed, I would argue that they have to answer more to the fringe voters than our present system does, even if they both wind up in the top two slots. That extra work asked of them is why they don't like IRV and are trying to make it sound like it doesn't work. I think these studies should go further and find out what voters actually feel about what their first or second choice elected politicians do for them versus what they feel was done for them without IRV. Might be a different story, and that IS important.

How those who get elected govern is as important as who gets elected with IRV in place.

I still don't see how IRV actually *hurts* third parties more than the present system does when they can't even get out of the chute. And ultimately it's not about making it better for third parties, but whether the voters feel better represented or not. I still would contend that whether your first or second place choice in IRV wins, you're more apt to get someone elected that works for your interests than the present system does. And if they both lose, I can't see how either would win with the present system and both lose in the second setup. Bottom line is that your first and second choices aren't doing enough to represent a plurality of voters then, so it might not work for you personally, but it works the way it should for most people to feel represented, and you'd likely be just as disappointed with the results under today's system.