[EM] "strategy" of IRV advocates

[Ted Stern]

I wrote yesterday to info at irvwa.org (advocates of an IRV initiative in
Washington State).  Gotta give them credit, I got a reply on the same day.
Here it is:

On 2 Mar 2005 at 16:33 PST, Paul McClintock wrote:
>>http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2005-January/014389.html
>
> Interesting.  Thanks.
>
>>why is there no debate on the means to attain the end?
>
> There is a time and place for debate, and a time and place for action.
> IRVWA has had some debate and discussion on the various alternatives, and
> had decided to focus attention on the IRV method.  Runoff elections are
> something most voters and politicians already have an understanding of, and
> IRV seems to us to be easier to explain to them.  We know it is not perfect,
> but there remains much more research to determine the best of the imperfect
> alternatives in practice.  IRV would get ranked (preferential) voting
> started, and the non-strategic voter would not have to change practices if
> IRV were replaced later with Condorcet (unless you go to allowing multiple
> choices with equal rank).
>
> Politically around the world and USA, IRV (sometimes by other names, e.g.,
> RCV in San Francisco) is gradually gaining success, but much more rarely are
> other systems (e.g., Condorcet, Borda, approval), in a civil government
> setting.  So IRV is a strategic decision by IRVWA.  Once IRV has been in use
> governmentally for a few years or more, and an election arises which
> suggests it didn't produce the best results (objectively), then a case can
> be made to legislators for an alternative.  Hopefully by then additional
> research into voting behavior will suggest more conclusively which voting
> system is "best."
>
> See my recent summary of voting methods if interested:
> http://www.paulmcclintock.com/edu/preferential-voting.htm
>
> -- Paul McClintock
> IRVWA Secretary
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Stern
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 1:13 PM
> To: info <at> irvwa <dot> org
> Subject: end does not justify the means
>
>
> I agree with all the reasons IRVWA uses to argue that the primary/general
> election method in Washington State must be changed.
>
> However, I don't agree with the means IRVWA is choosing to attain that goal.
>
> See the following article:
>
> http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2005-January/014389.html
>
> If IRV advocates truly welcome election reform, why is there no debate on
> the means to attain the end?
>
> Sincerely,


"We've done the research for you.  We know it's not perfect.  Let's try this
first.  We can change later if we need to."

So it's a foot in the door.  But for what?  The IRVWA proposal is a 3 choice
preference ballot, no equal ranking.

Incidentally, the IRV initiative failed to get onto the 2004 election ballot.

Ted
-- 
Send real replies to
	ted stern at u dot washington dot edu

Frango ut patefaciam -- I break so that I may reveal