[EM] Re: IRV letter

[wclark at xoom.org]

Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:

> Hi Bill,

Hi Ernie,

> 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.

I worry that reform might be defeated because the anti-IRV faction of the
reform movement split the vote, and that such a defeat might discourage
support for reform in general.

In fact, I'd think a defeated referendum would be more discouraging to
supporters of change, than a reform that passed but then under-performed. 
At least the second way you still get to keep election reform in the
public dialogue.

Also, the reasons IRV fails aren't really the kind of reasons supporters
of Plurality want to latch onto.  So if anything, the failure of IRV might
actually encourage further reform toward Condorcet (or something else)
rather than back toward Plurality.

> 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.

I don't entirely follow you here.

As I understand it:  Plurality induces strategic voting as well, and in a
fairly overpowering way.  The suppression of third parties that results
shouldn't be taken as *no* information, but as false information claiming
that support is at absurdly low levels.  There are many people (perhaps
even a majority) who actually believe that all third parties are "fringe"
groups without much support.

I wrote:

>> 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?

You replied:

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

But the political reality (in the United States) is that we have
Plurality.  The best strategy under Plurality is to reduce the issue to a
binary choice.  In many cases (and in particular, in the case of
referendums on election reform) the issue is presented as a binary choice
-- approve or disapprove the change, majority decides.

> 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.

All good points.

> 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.

I think that's also a good point, but that we need to remember than many
IRV supporters are simply unaware of alternatives.  In their minds, "IRV"
and "Election Reform" mean the same thing, so until they can distinguish
the two their first reaction will be to take an attack on one as an attack
on both.

Of course there are supporters of IRV who *are* aware of alternatives, and
who choose to continue supporting IRV anyway.  Many of them hold opinions
that might seem deliberately perverse.

> Otherwise, IRV advocacy reminds us too much of the self-righteous
> hypocrisy and false choices that we're trying to -remove- from politics.

But again, the irritating fact of the matter is that those false choices
are still very much a part of politics.  Until we manage to rewrite the
rules of the game, we'll just have to play as they're currently written --
and if that means the first step to change is going to be a binary choice
between "election reform" and "status quo" then I'll continue to urge the
IRV and Condorcet supporters to start getting along.

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

It's helping, thanks.

-Bill Clark

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