[EM] IRV vs Plurality

[robert bristow-johnson]

On Jan 15, 2010, at 9:47 AM, Kathy Dopp wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 1:44 AM, robert bristow-johnson
> <rbj at audioimagination.com> wrote:
>>> Kathy may make mistakes, but I'd be astonished to find her lying.
>>
>> she's pretty partisan (as am i), now i don't even remember what  
>> she said
>> that i found so hard to believe.
>
> Really!!??  Since I've never contributed or participated with *any*
> campaign and my work has been completely nonpartisan,

you're *very* partisan about the IRV vs. Plurality/Deleayed_runoff  
debate.  you are soooo anti-IRV that you have absolutely no  
recognition of the *well* *known* problems regarding Plurality in a  
multiparty, multi-candidate election.  you are sooooo anti-IRV that you

"partisan" doesn't have to mean Dem vs GOP (or Prog vs. Libertarian  
whatever).  your unbending, not completely thoughtful (or at least  
thought out) positions (actually it position, singular) about this is  
precisely what identifies you as a bulldog.  a partisan bulldog.

that's what you are.


> since you claim *again* to be able to read my mind better than I can,



> what political party do I belong to and am I so partisan with?

see above.

you are in the rabid anti-IRV party.

it's someone else, but are tea-baggers partisan?  they're not Dem or  
GOP.  at least they claim not.

>
> I did go to a particular political party convention

pftttt...


> Your deep confusion of your own imagination and reality is truly
> astonishing Robert.

yes it is.  whatever you say.

you complain about IRV.  i do too, you ignore it.

you complain about IRV, i offer plausible resolution to what we all  
recognize as problematic, but since it isn't the simplistic reversion  
to the old-fashioned FPTP that so heavily favors the two-party  
system, you ignore and infer that i am an IRV partisan (i think Terry  
wishes i *was*, but he has known for months that i am highly critical  
of it).  but i continue to recognize the reasons we ditched FPTP and  
adopted IRV in the first place (for just the mayoral race).  *those*  
are totally legit reasons and you have shown no acknowledgment of any  
of it.  you have made several factually incorrect statements, and  
when the content of those factually incorrect statements started  
being about me, my positions, and what i have said, i started to  
become incredulous.  NO ONE, reading this list or anything i said at  
FairVote (hell, i was arguing with Rob Richie himself) or in the  
local Burlington blogs, can credibly claim that i think that IRV is  
the solution.

but IRV is still better than FPTP for the multiparty, multi-candidate  
context.

but, if for a partisan bulldog, it's hard to listen.


--

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."