[EM] James--The burden of doubt, part 1

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

I'd said:

>It isn't clear what you point is.

	I've already clarified it somewhat in a previous post. "The burden of
doubt should be cast on any new voting method

I reply:

Is that why you insist that wv is worse than IRV unless proven otherwise? Do 
you think that makes any sense when IRV isn't the status-quo, but is just 
another replacement proposal?

You continue:

, and that voting methods
designers should actively hunt for the flaws in theoretical systems rather
than assuming those flaws to be nonexistent until they occur in practice."
	Actually, I don't really even need to say this. Whenever a new voting
method is seriously considered, its advocates *do* shoulder the burden of
doubt in practice.

I reply:

That's right, wv advocates have been thoroughly discussing its possible 
problems. Of course no one is stopping you from pointing out additional 
ones. But I suggest that you get to work on finding them, instead of just 
hypothesizing about them. When wv is proposed to the public as a replacement 
for Plurality, then trot out your reasons to justify a claim that wv is 
worse than Plurality, if you have reached that conclusion by that time. But, 
in the meantime, let's have less hypothesizing and innuendo, and more work 
to find those problems that you're hypothesizing about.

You continue:

Hence, I'm merely saying that we should prepare
ourselves to do this for any method that we would like to implement.

I reply:

We'be been doing that for years.

You continue:

If we
can't anticipate and effectively answer the worst criticisms that can be
made of our favorite systems, then we will be unprepared when someone else
brings them up at a critical juncture.

I reply:

Then point out a wv problem that we haven't already answered about.

You continue:

>Sometimes CVD people complain that Condorcetists and Approvalists are 
>working against reform when they
>oppose IRV proposals.

	I currently agree with this perspective.

I reply:

As I said, we wanted co-operation and discussion. It was the IRV promoters 
who insisted on forging ahead and ignoring everyone else's warnings about 
IRV.

You continue:

>But it was Condorcetists and Approvalists who asked Richie to avoid this 
>situation in which IRV's faults are discussed publicly.

	Nothing wrong with an honest public discussion of method pros and cons.
But the point remains that IRV is an improvement over plurality and
runoffs, and hence opposing IRV amounts to opposing an improvement.

I reply:

IRV doesn't significantly improve on Plurality. IRV proposals waste people's 
time, money, and trust, and will discredit electoral reform, just as surely 
as it will discredit its promoters.

You continue:

I do find the relative close-mindedness of some IRV advocates to be
frustrating at times. However, I don't think that there is much if
anything to be gained by responding with hostility

I reply:

You still don't understand the history. I and other Condorcetists and 
Approvalists were the ones who advocated co-operation and discussion. The 
IRV promoters were the ones who insisted on making us have to criticize IRV 
to the publc (or at least when we have time to).

You continue:

, and trying to block
mildly good proposals because their advocates are not able or willing to
appreciate better proposals.

I reply:

"Mildly good proposals" is an exaggeration. How about "nonreforms".


You continue:

>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.

	I hope not. Aside from yourself, who exactly are these anti-IRV
pro-Condorcet people?

I reply:

I'm certain that Bart won't mind my naming him as someone who, along with 
me, wrote to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors at a time when they were 
considering IRV. They rejected IRV on that occasion. That happened because 
1) We heard about the proposal; and 2) We had time to inform the supervisors 
about IRV.

As for Alaska, I don't remember the name of the other EM member who wrote to 
the Alaska Democrats and to the people putting together the ballot 
arguments.  I believe that that person was a Condorcetist. Alaska rejected 
IRV too.

I claim that we can achieve that every time if we combine our work, divide 
the work so that there will be someone to find out about each IRV proposal, 
and someone to sink it.

You continue:

It seems to me that most people who understand the
merits of Condorcet methods should appreciate that IRV is at least a small
step in the right direction.

I reply:

...said the man who had a patch of quicksand between him and his 
destination.

You continue:

Who else, besides yourself, has actively
opposed (lobbied against) IRV as a replacement for plurality and runoffs
on the grounds that it is inferior to Condorcet or approval?

I reply:

I answered that question as well as I could above in this reply.

You continue:

	Your paragraph above seems somewhat self-serving, in that you are taking
credit for IRV adoption failures

I reply:

No, I'm taking shared credit for them.

You continue:

where there were obviously many other
factors at work

I reply:

Sure, it might be a coincidence. I didn't actually claim it wasn't. I 
truthfully said that I don't know of an instance when IRV passed when it was 
opposed by people who take voting system reform seriously.

You continue:

, and making rather vague excuses for the cases that don't
fit your grandiose assertion.

I reply:

My grandiose assertion is that I don't know of any IRV proposals that have 
succeeded when opposed by people who take voting system reform seriously. 
Grandiose perhaps, but true.

But let's find out for sure then. Let's oppose every IRV proposal. I 
guarantee that then not one IRV proposal will pass.

You continue:

	In general, I hope that you are acting fully in the interest of a better
democracy, rather than compromising this pursuit to the service of your
own ego.

I reply:

People who have no better arguments always soon resort to speculating about 
the motives of those with whom they disagree.

To be continued.

Mike Ossipoff

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/