[EM] Re: IRV letter

[Adam H Tarr]

Bill Clark wrote:

>By way of comparison, I'd consider Plurality a drop of water in a gallon
>of sewage, IRV maybe a couple drops of water in a gallon of sewage -- and
>even Condorcet would amount to some mixture of sewage and water.  They're
>all flawed systems, if you want to get down to it.

I think that the reason Eric chose this analogy is that sewage is a binary 
thing: either you have drinakble water or you don't.  He's just saying that 
both are below the acceptable/unacceptable border, and as such the 
differences between them are irrelevant.

I'm a bit more moderate than Eric on this subject, as I do see improvements 
over Plurality in IRV.  The issue is that those improvements really only 
apply as long as you remain entrenched in a two-party duopoly with all 
other alternatives being weak and on the extremes.  Which is to say, IRV 
can't really handle an election with more than two viable candidates.

Whether IRV is a dead-end for reform, or a potential stepping stone to 
better ranked ballot methods, is a matter of some debate.  If there was an 
IRV movement where I lived, I would argue with the people in charge of it, 
and failing convincing them, I would publicize information about IRV flaws 
and the better alternatives.  But if all my efforts failed, and I was in 
the voting booth, I would vote yes on an IRV initiative.

>In fact, I'm not entirely sure what pure water would even look like. 
>Since some fairness criteria are mutually incompatible, it may even be
>that one person's water is another's sewage.

There's no doubt that's true.  But presumably everyone has an idea of what 
criteria are important to them.