[EM] IRV in WA state

[Bart Ingles]

I would have agreed with you as recently as a year ago, but I now see
Hare (aka IRV) as a sort of dead end in a rat maze.  It won't help elect
any third party candidates (look at Australia's lower house).  And it
will neutralize any ability of third parties to influence policy
(although 3rd parties have been less than adept at using this power). 
And once in place it will be an impediment to more meaningful reform.

About the most Hare/IRV would do for third parties is to make it easier
to get enough votes to qualify for matching funds -- assuming the vote
requirements aren't raised to compensate.  Hardly worth being stuck with
a system you will have to campaign to remove later on. 

(Actually the Libertarian Party has been ambivalent on the question of
even accepting matching funds.)



Alex Small wrote:
> 
> Personally, I am so thirsty for a viable third party that if an IRV
> initiative came to CA I would vote for it.  I would get involved early on
> and encourage the organizers to consider Condorcet, Approval, or Cardinal
> Ratings, but if it became clear that the voting reform momentum was behind
> IRV I'd back it.
> 
> Progress is about improvement, not perfection.  There are many types of
> change:  Small steps backward, small steps forward, big steps backward, big
> steps forward, and status quo.
> 
> Of course, if one believes that IRV is worse than plurality, then I don't
> fault that person for campaigning against it.  I'm a libertarian, so follow
> your conscience.
> 
> Alex Small