The Allure of IRV

[hager2002 at lsh107.siteprotect.com]

On Fri, 26 Apr 2002, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:

> 
> Adam & Paul--
> 
> Ok it's true that people who've heard of rank balloting correctly
> sense that it can give them something that can't otherwise be
> gotten. I don't want to seem to be opposing the proposing of
> Condorcet; it's my favorite too.
> 
> In fact, the 2000 Presidential election, and what followed, is
> a convincing argument for the desirability of being able to vote
> 3 candidate merit levels instead of 2. A luxury of the best
> Condorcet versions is that you can vote as many merit levels as
> you want to. Three merit levels would be just right for me in the 2000
> Presidential election, if that election were re-held tomorrow.
> 
> But compared to Plurality, Approval gives voters a lot more opportunity for 
> expression,
> and variety of ways to vote, different strategies, different ways
> of saying something by your vote. And most important of all,
> no matter what strategy you use, you can be assured that no one
> will ever use the strategy of burying their favorite. Though Approval
> doesn't let us vote all of our pairwise preferences, people will typically 
> be voting about half of their preferences in Approval.
> 
> Of course I'd rather have the best Condorcet methods, ideally.
> 
> I guess my main concern with Condorcet proposals is that it takes
> some listening, some attention, some study, for a person to understand
> why one rank-count is better than another. I just don't know if
> enough people will make that effort. And it's necessary that they
> do, if we're going to get a _good_ rank-count adopted. People who
> listen and take the necessary time will understand that Condorcet(wv)
> is the rank-count that they want. But will enough people make that
> effort?
> 
> Mike Ossipoff
> 

Mike --

I essentially agree with your points.  My statement that Condorcet is a
fallback -- and it is -- doesn't say anything about my readiness to fall
back.  Frankly, I see it as unlikely that it would be necessary to
seriously consider it.  However, political realities dictate that I show
that a public ratification of voting reform -- by electing me -- will be
followed by a review of the options by experts and political
"stakeholders".  In this regard, I see Condorcet only as the good 
alternative that will be available to be rejected.

Regards,

-- 
paul hager		hager2002 at hager2002.org

"The most formidable weapon against errors of every kind is reason."
			-- Thomas Paine, THE AGE OF REASON

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em