[EM] IRV letter

[wclark at xoom.org]

> Fairly recently messages have been posted here about IRV proposals for
> particular communties or states. A recent such message was about Utah.

I assume you're referring to the proposal discussed on this website:

http://www.utahpolitics.org/archives/000173.shtml

(Originally posted to the list by Eric Gorr on Thursday, 22 April 2004.)

Once again, I would like to ask the IRV-haters to think about the big
picture here.

If you read the points raised on that website, you'll realize that nearly
all the arguments raised against IRV would apply to ANY ranked method. 
The IRV opponents in this case happen to be anything-but-the-status-quo
opponents.  They are NOT the people you want to ally yourself with.

Let me repeat that:  THEY ARE NOT THE PEOPLE YOU WANT TO ALLY YOURSELF WITH.

My complaint with all the IRV-bashing isn't that I think IRV is a
particularly good method (I happen to think it's not very good at all, and
will even concede that it's worse than plurality in many ways.)  My
complaint is that it is extremely counter-productive to the cause of
election system reform to continually attack IRV supporters.  Most of them
(in my experience) are simply ignorant of alternatives -- or they have a
bad impression of alternatives, because they've been attacked by
IRV-bashers on previous occasions.

Rather than giving help to the opponents of reform in Utah, I'd think a
much better approach would be to help the IRV supporters counter some of
the more general anti-ranking-method arguments of their opponents (to gain
their trust and good will) and then to provide them with links to
resources where they can learn more about other election methods.

-Bill Clark

-- 
Protest the 2-Party Duopoly:
http://votenader.org/