[EM] IRV vs. Plurality

[John B. Hodges]

>Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2003 13:52:58 -0700
>From: Bart Ingles <bartman at netgate.net>
>Subject: Re: [EM] IRV vs. Plurality
>
>I have a question of my own:  What kinds of pro-IRV activities do you
>think should be protected from interference by advocates of other
>systems?  Does this apply only to efforts to pass a pro-IRV law or
>ballot initiative, or should we also refrain from responding to pro-IRV
>editorials, for example?  Or how about the recent League of Women Voters
>Election Systems Studies, which were in part promoted and financed by
>pro-IRV groups-- should these be considered 'IRV territory' as well?
>(much snipped)
>  >         In general, I think that it is very counter-productive 
>for advocates of
>>  Condorcet and Approval to spend their efforts trying to block attempts to
>>  implement IRV. It seems obvious that their effort would be better spent
>>  trying to implement their own favorite system, rather than defending
>>  plurality against IRV.
>
>I repeat my question from above:  What kinds of pro-IRV activities
>should be protected from interference by advocates of other systems?
>Specific attempts at implementation, or any activity by IRV advocates?
>And what constitutes "blocking"-- actual lobbying against an IRV
>initiative, or any public criticism of IRV?  It seems to me that there
>is a fine line between "blocking" and educating the public.  Where would
>you draw the line?  And if the attempt to implement IRV happens to be in
>my own hometown, can I lobby my own council members against it, or
>should I move to another city before contacting my representatives?
>
>In general, I see nothing wrong with competition.  That's democracy.  In
>some cases, the controversy could be beneficial.  While I don't favor
>following IRV advocates around and attempting to counter all of their
>efforts, I don't feel any particular obligation to engage in a
>conspiracy of silence either.  In the extreme-- and I'm not saying
>that's what's being advocated here, but I have seen it elsewhere-- the
>suggestion that we should hide our differences from the public strikes
>me as elitist and unethical.

JBH here- IMHO, if you have a serious proposal to place before the 
voters as an alternative to IRV, THEN it would be legitimate 
competition to compare and contrast the relative virtues and flaws of 
the respective proposals. If you do not have any specific alternative 
to offer, and are criticizing because the IRV proposal is not the 
best you could imagine, then your efforts are simply obstructive. 
When the effective alternatives are IRV vs. status-quo, unless you 
honestly take the position that IRV is worse than plurality, worse 
than two-round runoff, then you should not oppose IRV proposals.

And frankly, IMHO, no honest person can say that IRV is worse than 
plurality, worse than two-round runoff, however brilliant they or 
others think they may be.

So I am repeating something I have said before. If you think that 
Ranked Pairs Condorcet, or plain Approval, or MCA/Bucklin, are better 
than IRV, and you wish to do the work to put a proposal on the ballot 
to implement your favored system, GO FOR IT!!! If you don't wish to 
do the work, then please, stay out of the way of those who do.

Bart also said he didn't accept the "stepping-stone" argument. Again 
IMHO, there is very little worth to ANY single-winner method, unless 
it is part of a larger agenda for proportional representation. In 
abstract models you can argue that the legislature will choose the 
same proposals under single-seat districts as it would under PR, if 
the single-seat districts choose their reps by some good 
single-winner method. IMHO this is losing sight of the differences 
between abstract models and reality. Theorists and professional 
academics sometimes do this, it is a failing to guard against. 
Reality is discontinuous, nonlinear, multidimensional, and "messy" in 
many ways; having mathematical assurances of equilibrium tendencies 
of abstract systems is no substitute for having a real human being in 
the legislature whom you voted FOR as articulating your own views and 
priorities. To seriously reform the current system, we need to move 
to a multiparty system; to allow a larger fraction of the population 
to see someone in the legislature who they voted FOR, who represents 
their views, there is no alternative (AFAIK) to proportional 
representation in multi-seat districts. Single-winner methods are 
sometimes unavoidable; for executive seats, we might as well use the 
best method we know of. There is no good in using single-seat methods 
when they are not necessary.
-- 
----------------------------------
John B. Hodges, jbhodges@  @usit.net
Do Justice, Love Mercy, and Be Irreverent.