J. Paul Johnston wrote:

First, let me say it was not my intent to post my "response" to Larry
Levine's comment anonymously; I simply ran afoul of the problem Rick Hasen
notified us about a few days ago: posting from an email address other than
that recognized by the ElectionLaw list.
Next, I'm a bit puzzled by Larry's response to my comment about IRV. My
"forum" is the classroom true enough: I've spent the past 37 years teaching
about the psychology underlying the very "practical politics" Larry cites.
So, the "factual basis" considered in my classroom has generally been that
of practical politics. And, I must say that the  "center" has never been
portrayed, say in the course I teach on political attitudes and ideological
thinking, as a euphemism for an absence of ideology. Nor does Larry's
"Southern politician" match the politicians I encountered during the four
years I spent in Texas and the following five years in North Carolina in
the late 1950's and the 1960's. Most of them had very definite "positions"
on current and historical political matters, were seldom "centrist" views
in ANY sense of that term, and, apart from those who were Afro-American, it
was party labels that didn't distinguish among them.

But, all this is irrelevant to the issue raised concerning IRV. All of the
pertinent research literature available shows that single-member plurality
electoral systems encourage two-party or, even more commonly, one-party
dominant, competition that more often than not favors centrist parties, at
least in terms of parliamentary party representation. At the same time, it
does not reduce the number of candidates/parties who choose to contest
elections, so it has little effect on "entry" at that level, which is one
reason why the "opposition" vote to the dominant party is usually badly
fragmented and ineffective. IRV doesn't solve this problem, which SHOULD
have been Larry's point, even though it eliminates the cost of a second
round of elections. And, to the extent that it encourages the pre-election
formation of party alliances or "cartels" along more definite and
predetermined lines, it could possibly encourage a "move to the Center"
even more so than SMP systems do. Whether such movements would merge
"parallel" or "contiguous" ideological blocs or simply be creations of
expediency and the strategic maneuverings of political consultants remains
an empirical matter to be decided by the circumstances. As it happens, I am
not a great fan of IRV, but I prefer to see some reference to facts when
others argue against its adoption on grounds that purport to be based on
"experience."
J. Paul Johnston, Associate Professor Department of Political Science
The University of Alberta

EMAIL: J.P.Johnston@ualberta.ca