[EM] Draft of CVD analysis about IRV vs. Condorcet Voting

[RLSuter at aol.com]

To James and Ernie,

Thanks very much for your comments. I agree with Ernie that it's important to 
be civil. If my comments regarding the CVD draft seemed unnecessarily 
combative, that was not my intention, and I'll try to be more careful in the future. 
But please keep in mind that I was responding to what struck me as uncivil 
rhetoric in the draft, beginning with the initial unfair (if not insulting) 
characterization of Condorcet as a method "favored by some mathematicians".

I actually have been generally supportive of CVD's work except for its 
advocacy of IRV and the refusal of its leaders to allow any debate within the 
organization concerning the pros and cons of IRV and other single winner methods. In 
fact, I attended the 1992 founding convention in Cincinnati of Citizens for 
Proportional Representation, the organizational precursur of CVD. I met Rob 
Richie there and have talked or exchanged emails with him a number of times since 
them. I also know Dan Johnson-Weinberger of CVD and the Midwest Democracy 
Center (we both live in Chicago), who is heading up efforts to promote cumulative 
voting and IRV legislation in Illinois.

Until, now, CVD's leaders have dealt with opponents of IRV by ignoring them, 
despite the fact that CVD's advisory board includes prominent supporters of 
other methods, including both Condorcet and Approval. (Aside from Lijphart, the 
board also includes Steven Brams, co-inventor of aproval voting). But with the 
recent Scientific American article about "true majority voting" (a new name 
for Condorcet) and a November 2002 Science News article about approval voting, 
that's becoming harder to do. My view is that CVD should have encouraged 
debate within the organization about single winner methods before deciding to 
commit to IRV. Instead, Richie and a few other leaders apparently decided among 
themselves to go with IRV and to discourage further debate.

I must thank Steve Epply for educating me about the importance of single 
winner reform and the advantages of Condorcet over IRV. He and I participated in 
some very interesting and informative discussions on the Alliance for Democracy 
email list in 1996. At one point, Rob Richie and another CVD leader engaged 
in a brief discussion with us on the list. I was less impressed with their 
arguments for IRV than Steve's arguments for Condorcet, but Rob and the other CVD 
person dropped out of the discussion pretty quickly. I appealed to Rob and 
Steven Hill by email to allow a debate about IRV at the 1997 convention (not 100% 
sure of that date), but got no response from either of them.

Perhaps I should have been more vocal over the years, but other issues and 
projects have been much greater priorities for me than voting reform, and I have 
had limited time and resources to engage in debates on issues of different 
kinds. At the same time, I have appreciated most of CVD's work and have not been 
eager to criticize the organization publicly about this, especially given 
that my prospects for success didn't seem very great. (I'm not an academic or 
well known activist and have no very useful credentials.)

But I now think that somehow things need to change and there is an urgent 
need for greater public discussion of alternative single winner voting methods. 
CVD is probably too committed to IRV to be willing to sponsor that discussion, 
so it will have to be started some other way. I'm tentatively planning a visit 
to DC next weekend and may meet with Eric Gorr to talk about this. Is there 
anyone else on the list who lives in or near DC who would like to join us?

-Ralph Suter

In a message dated 4/3/04 12:30:26 AM Central Standard Time, drernie at mac.com 
writes:

<< Hi Ralph,
 
 I think its a fair critique, but I would encourage you to approach them 
 in a more positive fashion.  For example, I think they do raise a 
 number of valid points, and this seems the first most of us have seen 
 of IRV supporters actually trying to tackle the issues head on.
 
 I would encourage you to start with affirming their valid points before 
 criticizing the (notable) weaknesses, as I think it will make it more 
 likely for them to acknowledge your complaints.  After all, you're 
 trying to write *to* them, not *about* them, so it pays to be civil.
 
 -- Ernie P.
 
 On Apr 3, 2004, at 1:27 AM, James Green-Armytage wrote:
 
 >
 > to Ralph Suter,
 >
 >  I liked this letter a lot. I especially liked the part where you took
 > issue with Amy's treatment of Condorcet! I read that book too, and the
 > part on Condorcet which you cited really bothered me. And the Lijphart
 > quote, wow! I also agree that the 'punishing candidates who take clear
 > stances on issues' part of the draft, which was the central argument, 
 > is poorly supported. I also agree that IRV retains many of the polarizing
 > tendencies of plurality, and this is bad news.
 >
 > my best,
 > James >>