[EM] IRV vs. Plurality

[Bart Ingles]

"John B. Hodges" wrote:
> 
> >Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2003 13:52:58 -0700
> >From: Bart Ingles
> >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.

So am I correct in inferring that you believe the public (or
legislators, or anyone being asked to implement IRV) should be shielded
from the negatives of that IRV?  In other words, we know what's best for
the public, and shouldn't confuse them with inconvenient facts.  This
doesn't sound like such a humble opinion to me.

Personally, I believe that public education trumps any particular ballot
proposal, even in the absence of a competing proposal.


> 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 anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest?  Thanks, John.

I believe that IRV is worse than Plurality and Runoff in this way:  The
current situation is irritating to the top two parties, giving them at
least some incentive for reform.  If IRV is widely implemented in
partisan elections, the top two parties will be completely shielded from
3rd party and independent candidates, and will be free to focus
exclusively each other.  There will be no more incentive to court 3rd
party swing voters, except where these voters also happen to be swing
voters relative to the top two candidates.

And worst of all, there will be no more incentive for the
top-two-party's voters and elected representatives to move beyond IRV. 
This means no incentive to graduate to Approval or Condorcet in
executive elections, and definitely no incentive for proportional
representation.  

Given the choice were between (1) IRV now and forever, and (2) live with
Plurality and Runoff with the prospect of implementing approval voting
(or some other Duverger-independent system) in the future, I would
gladly choose (2).


> 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.

I'm doing the work, to the extent that I am able.  Right now the work is
laying the groundwork in terms of public awareness.  What really bugs me
is the fact that many of the pro-IRV people I have deal with in the past
five years seem to take the view that competitors should stay out of the
way of IRV propaganda campaigns which are NOT connected with specific
ballot proposals.


> 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. [...]

As I argued above, I don't believe that IRV is a step toward PR any more
than it is a step toward better executive elections.  With IRV in place,
there is simply no incentive for the top two parties to move toward
anything else.


> 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.

AFAIK, IRV is a single-seat method.  So why would you promote it?

Bart