[EM] Re: IRV Letter

[Jeffrey O'Neill]

Mike,

I'm mostly a lurker on this list, but I'd like to respond to your letter.

(1) IRV is better than plurality.
I'm assuming that you and most everyone on this list agrees with this.

(2) It is easier to explain IRV than Condorcet.
Convincing a group to change from plurality to any other voting system is 
really hard.  IRV is easier to explain because it is similar to a runoff 
election.  While Condorcet isn't so hard to explain when a winner exists, 
the concept of cycles is very difficult to explain to the average 
person.  I think your letter is much too complicated for its intended 
audience.  People aren't going to get it.

(3) IRV could be a stepping stone to Condorcet.
I don't think it makes sense to sabotage efforts to enact IRV.  If anything 
I think it makes more sense to support IRV as a stepping stone to 
Condorcet.  Once people are familiar with ranked ballots, they can more 
easily be persuaded to consider Condorcet.

(4) Approval doesn't help get to Condorcet.
While approval voting is certainly easy to explain, you have to get around 
peoples' knee-jerk reactions of "one person one vote." (I know that OPOV is 
only about redistricting, but most people don't).  Also approval doesn't 
provide you with a good stepping stone to Condorcet.

(5) Condorcet and Approval may violate state constitutions.
This is beyond the scope of this email, but something to think about.

In summary, the practical and legal issues are as important as the 
theoretical issues.

Jeff

>From: "MIKE OSSIPOFF" <nkklrp at hotmail.com>
>
>Fairly recently messages have been posted here about IRV proposals for
>particular communties or states. A recent such message was about Utah. Could
>someone re-post the e-mail addresses at which I could write to the people
>considering those IRV proposals, or the e-mail addresses of the local
>newspapers there?
>
>I tried to reply earlier today, but it turned out that I'd merely posted my
>letter to an IRV mailing list. That's ok too, but I want to write to the
>people who are considering IRV as a public proposal, and to the newspaper in
>the cities where that's being considered.
>
>The IRV promoters will push their nonreform through everywhere they want to,
>if we're so busy discussing things more theoretical that we don't take time
>to communicate with the people who have only heard the IRV promoters and who
>are considering accepting their proposal. And, as I said, newspapers in
>cities where IRV is being considered.
>
>We can stop IRV. IRV can't get adopted anywhere where people have heard of
>its problems. Anywhere where people have heard from anyone other than the
>IRV promoters.