When people with an organization are all the same place and have time to keep voting again and again, as you suggest below, that provides an opportunity to negotiate between rounds and for a compromise candidate to emerge. But IRV is seen as the most viable approximation of that when you have people vote once and go home (or vote by mail).
Rob
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Josiah Neeley
<jneeley@bopplaw.com> wrote:
Tom,
You make an interesting point when you say that "almost never will a body
that has power to write the rules for its own elections, choose FPTP voting
for itself."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that in such cases bodies almost never
choose PR, AV, IRV, or Condorcet either. Instead, the prefered method seems
to be having a series of elections with many candidates which continue until
one candidate reaches a majority. For obvious reasons, *that* system would
not be workable on a large scale, so the question is really about what the
second best system would be.
-Josiah
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"
Rob Richie
Executive Director
FairVote
6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
Takoma Park, MD 20912
www.fairvote.org rr@fairvote.org(301) 270-4616
Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see
http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider a gift to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's CFC number is 10132.) Thank you!