[EM] One more thing about "Guilty till proven innocent"

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Actually I have no objection to thorough discussion of the comparison of the 
faults of IRV and wv before proposing either one. Discussion should be 
throrough, no-holds-barred, but should have a reasonable time-limit.

In fact it was I who asked Richie to discuss method-merit with single-winner 
reform advocates, instead of just pursuing his project in complete disregard 
for what is preferred by people who take the subject more seriously than 
Richie and other promoters do. I said, "Let's get our act together before we 
take it on the road."

But no, Richie began promoting IRV to the publc, with the result that the 
faults of IRV have been discussed in front of a general public audience, 
instead of just with IRVists. Sometimes CVD people complain that 
Condorcetists and Approvalists are working against reform when they oppose 
IRV proposals. But it was Condorcetists and Approvalists who asked Richie to 
avoid this situation in which IRV's faults are discussed publicly.

I've never heard of an IRV proposal succeeding where there was any 
opposition from Condorcetists &/or Approvalists. IRV failed in Alaska, and 
initially in San Francisco. On both occasions, a few of us heard of the 
proposal, and sent in our comments. Condorcetists and Approvalists can and 
will sink IRV anywhere where they have the opportunity and the time to tell 
the people what IRV is like.

IRV has succeeded in a few places where its genuine opposition either hadn't 
heard about it or didn't have time to deal with it.

Really, we should have an organization dedicated to finding out about each 
IRV proposal in the U.S., or anywhere, and taking turns writing to the 
decisionmakers involved in the choice, or getting our information published 
in newspaper letters or ballot-pamphlets there, attending forums, etc. We 
could fairly divide the time and labor of doing that work. I can't do it 
alone.

Don't feel that we shouldn't do that. It was Richie, not we, who chose the 
confrontariional nonco-operative mode. If it would make people feel more 
productive, we could simultaneously advocate Approval, CR, wv, or Cardinal 
Pairwise in those jurisdictions where we're opposing IRV.

But, James, to return to the original topic, IRV is already being 
aggressively promoted around the country. Do you seriously suggest that we 
should discuss at great length how "badly" wv can fail (in ways that I 
consider relatively irrelevant because they aren't strategy problems)? I 
suggest that when IRV is being gung-ho promoted by people who don't care 
about its problems, this is no time to waste our time debating wv endlessly 
before offering it as an alternative to IRV. Yes, as I said, I consider CR 
to be a better public proposal, but some suggest that a multi-pronged 
approach is good too. I've heard from a lot of people who like wv, including 
a state lawmaker who has proposed IRV in his legislature, and was interested 
in proposing wv there.

So, James, since it's the IRVists, not we, who are aggressively proposing 
something that they don't understand the problems of, maybe it would make a 
lot more sense for you to be discussing the need to talk about IRV's 
problems instead.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/