[EM] Re: IRV letter

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

I'd said:

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

Mr. Clark replied:

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.

I reply:

It isn't that we hate IRV. It's just that it's a nonreform that will get in 
the way of genuine reform.

You continued:

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.

I reply:

Sure they are, for the purpose of defeating IRV.

When IRV is proposed somewhere, I provide its opponents with information 
about why IRV is no good. I don't care why they oppose IRV. If they oppose 
IRV because they oppose all voting reform, then fine, let's help them defeat 
IRV. In an IRV campaign, they're our allies. If there's ever a genuine 
voting sysetm reform proposal, such as Condorcet, Approval, or CR, or 
Bucklin, or even ERIRV with AERLO, and if anti-reform people oppose that 
_genuine_ reform, then that would be different. Right now any IRV opponents 
are our allies.

The IRV promoters seem to arrogantly feel that they can ignore the 
preference of the larger voting system reform community. Let's show them 
that they're mistaken. Let's show them that we'll stop them from pushing 
their nonreform through.

You continued:

My
complaint is that it is extremely counter-productive to the cause of
election system reform to continually attack IRV supporters.

I reply:

I've been dealing with the IRV promoters for a long time. I and others asked 
them to have some discussion with the larger voting system reform community 
before pushing their own meritless proposal. We offered co-operation. I 
asked that we all get our act together before taking it on the road. I asked 
that we discuss the relative merits of IRV, Condorcet & Approval among 
ourselves, instead of having to argue against IRV to the publc. We tried to 
keep that from happening.

But no-o-o-o-o

And now the IRV promoters would portray the non-IRVists as the ones who 
won't co-operate.

It was the IRV promoters who refused co-operation. So let's keep that in 
perspective, the matter of who wanted to co-operate, and who thinks they 
don't need to co-operate.

You continued:

Most of them
(in my experience) are simply ignorant of alternatives

I reply:

Of course, because the IRV promotrers have been busy, and seem to have 
promotional money & organizational zeal.

You continued:

-- or they have a
bad impression of alternatives, because they've been attacked by
IRV-bashers on previous occasions.

I reply:

Many people who previously had heard only the pro-IRV people, have now heard 
our arguments, and no longer advocate IRV. Many who have heard our arguments 
know that Approval, CR, & Condorcet are better, and that there's no point in 
proposing the nonreform known as IRV.

You continued:

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)

I reply:

At the outset, we had never attacked their proposals in public, but that 
didn't do us any good; it didn't get us any good-will or co-operation from 
the IRV promoters.

But I'll tell you what they'll understand: They'll understand when they find 
that they can't push their nonreform through. Then they might change to a 
better proposal.

As I said, while providing information on IRV's problems to its opponents, 
wherever IRV is proposed, and in letters to the editor, wherever IRV is 
proposed, let's also offer to the IRV promoters some mitigation compromises, 
such as the ones that I've offered to them in a recent post:

1. Candidate withdrawal option
2. ERIRV with AERLO
3. Runoffs Without Eliminations (RWE)

You see, even now I'm still offering co-operation.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! 
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=hotmail/es2&ST=1/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/