In Donald Horowitz's rejoinder to Fraenkel and Grofman, he retreats from his previous claims about the desirability of alternative vote (AV), mischaracterizes our formal results, and nowhere addresses the extreme disproportionality of electoral outcomes in Fiji except to incorrectly dismiss this as due largely to malapportionment. Although he refuses to recognize the role AV played in the build-up to the overthrow of the Indian-led government in May 2000, Horowitz does acknowledge that the system he so strongly urged on Fiji's reformers failed to achieve its intended objectives at the elections of August 2001.
Fraenkel, J. & Grofman, B. (2006). Does the alternative vote foster moderation in ethnically divided societies? The case of Fiji.Comparative Political Studies, 39(5), 623-651.
2.
Horowitz, D. L. (1991). A democratic South Africa? Constitutional engineering in a divided society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
3.
Horowitz, D. L. (2006). Strategy takes a holiday: Fraenkel and Grofman on the alternative vote. Comparative Political Studies, 39(5), 652-662.
4.
Lijphart, A. (1997). Disproportionality under alternative voting: The crucial—and puzzling— case of the Australian Senate elections, 1919-1946.Acta Politica, 32(1), 9-24.
