[EM] Re: IRV letter

[wclark at xoom.org]

Adam Tarr wrote:

> People don't like being told that they've put a ton of time and effort
> into the wrong reform, and they need to step back from many of the
> advances they've worked hard to get and start over.

That's why I think it needs to be presented as an improvement, a step
forward, and not a step back.

> My guess is that the committee members:

> 1)  Were largely unfamiliar with Condorcet,
> 2)  Instinctively associated Forest's criticisms with the sort of bogus
> criticisms or IRV we saw in that Utah essay, and
> 3)  Sought to beat down Condorcet with the same stick they use against
> those criticisms.

That sounds fairly plausible to me, too.

I'd still argue that a more effective approach in such a case would be to
show the committee how Condorcet handles criticism even better than IRV
does.  We need to point out why Condorcet is better, not why IRV is worse.

One approach might be:

1) Show the committee members your new and improved stick for beating down
criticism of IRV (in the form of fairness criteria, examples using actual
numbers, etc.)

2) Let them see for themselves how some IRV criticisms are harder to beat
down than others, even with the new improved stick.

3) Familiarize them with Condorcet, as a way of easily beating down
(nearly) ALL the criticisms.

> In my opinion, we're left with two options:

> 1)  Let IRVists be, or even aid and abet them, and then launch an
> independent movement that seeks to effect Condorcet and/or turn IRV
> systems into Condorcet systems.

Maybe the IRV movement can and should evolve into something better.  Maybe
we can help it.  I happen to think that "something better" would be
something like Condorcet, but who knows?

> 2)  Oppose IRVists and make their lives difficult enough that they are
> actually forced to accommodate us.

You mean force them to surrender?  That seems pretty harsh to me.

> Both of these are tall orders.

Indeed.  All the more reason to work on it together with IRVists as
friends, than enemies.

> I don't support throwing our weight behind a worse system than a good wv
> Condorcet system, simply because we think it might appeal to some IRVists
> better.

I didn't mean to propose throwing our weight behind anything, except
coming up with better educational and promotional material.  I think we
need more promotional material for Condorcet that is more accommodating
(and even "hand-holding") toward IRVists -- and less that takes the form
of "Condorcet is better! IRV sucks! You're stupid if you don't see that!"

I really, genuinely believe that Condorcet is better than IRV, and I'm
convinced that if we simply give people the tools to educate themselves on
election methods, then most will end up becoming Condorcet supporters. 
The more we challenge or harass them over there support for IRV, the less
interested in learning they'll become.

> While candidate proxy is an improvement over IRV, I'd guess that
> most IRV supporters will reject it because it _seems_ like it gives less
> control to the voters.

Then for those people we should come up with a method that accommodates
*their* favorite features of IRV.  Once we get people to really understand
that there can be significant differences between methods (other than just
between Plurality and IRV-and-everything-else) then they'll be more
receptive to hearing about Condorcet.

> And most of us agree that Condorcet is significantly better than proxy
> (my second choice may not be the same as my favorite's, after all).

It would be if you voted for a "synthetic candidate" or "pure proxy"
candidate whose entire platform consisted of a pledge to concede to
candidate A first, otherwise B, if not either then C, and so forth.

In fact, such synthetic candidates could even run as a bloc, and agree to
collectively concede to whichever candidate wins a Condorcet-style
election amongst the group.  (Note that I'm stealing this idea in part
from Steve Eppley's recent post to the list regarding the Electoral
College.)

So, given the proper context and setup, Candidate Proxy can be made to
simulate Condorcet perfectly.  If you can get an IRVist to like Candidate
Proxy, it's that much easier to convince them to like Condorcet.

-Bill Clark

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