[EM] Sincerity for criteria, Blake

[Forest Simmons]

On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Blake Cretney wrote:

>   Forest Simmons wrote:
> 
> >Blake Cretney wrote:
> >
> >>But actually there's good reason to believe that reformers aren't 
> >>primarily concerned with the lesser-of-2-evils problem.  The biggest 
> >>single-winner campaign is for IRV, and this is because reform advocates 
> >>often become obsessed with quite different strategy problems than the 
> >>lesser of 2 evils (as least as you understand it).
> >>
> >
> >I've had extensive interaction with the FairVoteOregon (FAVOR)
> >organization here in Portland, speaking at one of their meetings, etc. In
> >spite of all my efforts (too little, too late) they went ahead with an IRV
> >initiative.
> >
> -snip--
> 
> >
> >They said they had only two reasons for abandoning plurality and
> >supporting IRV:  (1) the "spoiler" problem (some didn't like their Nader
> >vote detracting from Gore, others didn't like Gore votes detracting from
> >Nader).  (2) the lack of expressivity of the lone mark ballot. 
> >
> Since these problems are distinct from lesser-of-2-evils, you are 
> arguing in favour of my point, which was that lesser-of-2-evils isn't of 
> overwhelming importance to reformers generally.

Yes and No: these IRVies considered the lesser-of-2-evils and the spoiler
problem to be the same, both solved by the strong FBC believed to be
satisfied by IRV.

Part of their confusion comes from this mistaken belief, and part comes
from the fact that in Plurality there is no difference between the Spoiler
Problem and the LO2E problem: in plurality if your favorite is a spoiler,
then you have strong incentive to vote lesser of two evils, and if you
don't vote for one of the two front runners in a close race, then whomever
you vote for is a potential spoiler.


Forest