[ER] Minnesota and IRO (fwd)

[Mike Ositoff]

Forwarded message:


This is a reply to part of a message that was sent to ER & EM.
I've just replied to the ER copy, but forgot to send a copy
to EM. And so I'm now forwarding my reply to EM. That's why
my reply has ">" characters at the beginning of each line,
and the original message has 2 such characters at the beginning
of each line.
 
> > didn't get it.  In fact, one of the 2 big Twin Cities daily papers, in
> > endorsing another candidate, described Alan's new method as "abstruse"
> 
> And yet you claim that that method, rejected by those authors
> because of its complexity, is more acceptable & easier to
> understand than the other proposals here, including the
> simple Approval method.
> 
> > I know from tracking the EM discussion that some of you strongly dislike
> > Instant Runoff.  It may be theoretically inferior to other methods; I'm
> 
> "Theoretically inferior", that's what CVD types like to say. No
> it isn't just theoretically inferior. It will be inferior in
> its results. Actual, not theoretical.
> 
> 
> > not convinced, but I haven't been reading and studying EM closely.  But
> 
> Then won't you study the subject? No time to? No problem, but
> if you don't study it, then don't be so sure about the relative
> merits of the methods.
> 
> With few exceptions, the advocates of IRO tend to be people
> who are too busy promoting whatever they're promoting to actually
> take a serious responsible look at the merits issues of
> single-winner methods.
> 
> > I have to say that right now there's no way in the world to actually
> > 'sell' any of the other methods that are being discussed and compared. 
> 
> Yeah? What was it that those newspaper authors said about IRO? :-)
> 
> Approval is far simpler to define & explain than is IRO. 
> Where IRO involves considerable change, which you admit that
> people don't like, and amounts to a completely new & different
> voting system, Approval is nothing other than Plurality done
> right, Plurality with the voter freedom that it should have
> always had. And Approval, unlike IRO, won't give people a 
> strategic need to completely abandon their favorite. With Approval
> everyone can always vote for their favorite.
> 
> > Practically speaking, if it takes more than a minute to break through to
> > the potential voter, there's no way to grab their attention to explain
> > Condorcet Winners or anything else.  Instant Runoff is what we have to
> > use in the real world to introduce a change from plurality single winner
> > elections.  There has to be a bridge to a more perfect system.
> 
> I recommend that you study the subject, and you'll find out that
> IRO isn't any significant step in the direction of a better
> system.
> 
> Approval is defined without talking about Condorcet winners.
> 
> So is Condorcet(EM):
> 
> A beats B if more voters rank A over B than vice-versa.
> 
> If a candidate beats each one of the others then he wins.
> 
> OTherwise, the winner is the candidate whose greatest defeat
> is the least, as measured by how many voters rank the defeating
> candidate over him.
> 
> ***
> 
> (Though a candidate who beats each one of the others must be
> a Condorcet winner, that term wasn't used).
> 		 
> Mike Ossipoff
> 
>