[EM] Re: IRV letter

[Dr.Ernie Prabhakar]

Hi Bill,

On Apr 27, 2004, at 8:23 AM, wclark at xoom.org wrote:
> Eric Gorr wrote:
>
>> I don't consider the likelihood of the failure [to select the CW]
>> to be relevant with respect to IRV.
>
> Why not?  If IRV does a better job than Plurality of selecting the CW 
> (a
> point you don't seem to be refuting) then why shouldn't it be used 
> instead
> of Plurality?

I personally am somewhat ambivalent about IRV, but I can give a couple 
reasons:

a)  The 'spoiler' effect.  There's a fear that if IRV is adopted as 
'the' voting reform, and it fails to live up to its hype, then it will 
actually make it harder to adopt Condorcet (or any other reform) in the 
future.

b) Information distortion.   Plurality gives almost no information 
about third-parties.  IRV, by contrast, runs the risk of giving false 
information about third-parties, by the fact that it ends up inducing 
strategic voting.

> Obviously (according to most people on this list, at least) Condorcet 
> is
> even better, and IRV pales in comparison there -- but if IRV is more
> likely to select the CW than Plurality, and our choice is strictly 
> between
> IRV and Plurality, shouldn't we use IRV?  If not, why not?

Because people on this list hate binary choices, which is why we're 
interested in voting reform. :-)

> I'd think you'd want to dispute the claim that IRV selects the CW more
> often than Plurality does, not declare that fact irrelevant.  I'm
> genuinely confused about your position, here.  Would you mind 
> clarifying?

The goal of election reform is not simply to increase the chance of 
getting the CW.   Most of us have other motives - improving the 
standing of third parties, making it easier for people to vote 
sincerely, increasing voter turnout, enhancing transparency and 
accountability in government, etc.   Electing the CW is, in this view, 
necessary but not sufficient.  IRV could help on the CW front, but hurt 
in others.

Really, I think a lot of the problem some of us Codorcists (?) have 
with IRV is the way it is presented.  If IRV supporters more often 
acknowledged the existence of alternatives and their strengths and 
weaknesses vs. IRV, then it would be easier to see it as a stepping 
stone, and part of an ongoing dialogue. Otherwise, IRV advocacy reminds 
us too much of the self-righteous hypocrisy and false choices that 
we're trying to -remove- from politics.

I'm not necessarily saying that this is always the most rational view 
on our part, but hopefully it helps you understand it better.

-- Ernie P.


>
> -Bill Clark
>
> -- 
> Protest the 2-Party Duopoly:
> http://votenader.org/
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list 
> info