Guess who’s a close second?

David, again you misrepresent the evidence from comparative research on democratic elections.

Research shows that IRV basically works like FPTP in terms of its relationship to the party system and electoral/legislative behaviour – ie. little inter-party cooperation, antagonism and posturing (sound familiar Canadian House watchers?).

Also, by throwing out that stink Belgian red herring, you demonstrate your lack of regard for the facts. Belgium is probably the most linguistically divided country in the world. No serious political commentator would pretend that country could have even survived if its elections had been contested under a single-member winner take all system (this prognosticator thinks they would have all become French or Dutch, with Brussels going to crap).

And BTW, the American members of Fair Vote that I have talked to have said they are jealous of Canada’s multi-party democracy and our ability to have PR on the political agenda. They only advocate IRV because of the legally entrenched two-party system in most states, but all know that PR-elected legislatures provide manifestly superior governance. They’d probably wish you’d stop using their name to criticise their friends and allies in Canada.

What we /have/ is a two party system. Giving us IRV is what will allow other parties to break into the political marketplace, like the Greens. It also assumes that changing the electoral system will not change the political culture, which of course flies in the face of the pro-PR arguments in the first place. Having IRV promotes inter-party cooperation and big-tent politics. PR promotes antagonism, posturing, and small-tent politics, and joyous situations like Belgium’s year without a government.

The final argument is if you like the idea, go for STV. Which was just defeated.

IRV is the only viable alternative to SMP. If you’re serious about reform, get behind it.

Bingo. You nailed it.

IRV or preferential balloting is inherently more democratic, encourages community consensus building, and forces political opponents to be respectful to one another. It may not fix all of the ills of our system, but it will fix some. And most importantly, people would get behind it.

Proportional Representation will never fly in Canada. It has been defeated by the requisite supermajority three times so far. FVC’s ideological bent for PR is so strong that they will never accept the democratic will of the people, something that they purport to be promoting.

I would much prefer SMP over PR and will fight to the death to keep PR out of this country. If SMP remains the compromise system, it is one that I can live with. If it is not one FVC people can live with, then they will need to come around to IRV. If not, then the status quo will remain.

That there is no grassroots support for IRV is an incorrect assertion. There is little grassroots support for PR. PR is a deeply partisan, not grassroots, movement. IRV (or full run-off) is already used as the basis for the internal democratic systems of most political parties, as controlled by the grass roots. There are few people other than those who want fringe parties to have vastly disproportionate power who do not believe IRV is a better system.

We will switch to IRV if and when it becomes the broad consensus/compromise position of the public. By pushing for absurd proportional systems that don’t really work anywhere they are implemented, those who want electoral reform have successfully prevented us from moving to an actual improved system for years to come.

For that, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

There is no organized grassroots movement in favour of IRV. Maybe you should start one? That would be necessary in order to convince anyone in the political class to even touch electoral reform again in the future.

The fact that FairVote Canada is against IRV is what baffles me. FairVote USA recommends — you guessed it — IRV. I believe if they were serious about worthwhile improvements, they would go for IRV. That they’re not belies their inherent dishonesty with the public they seek to convince.

I don’t believe FVC _is_ a strong grassroots movement. If it was, all of these referendums would have won a decisive victory. More importantly, as FVC is particularly excellent at defeating itself, if we have a referendum on IRV and FVC opposes it, it is virtually guaranteed to pass.