[EM] Condorcet How?

[robert bristow-johnson]

On Mar 22, 2010, at 6:06 PM, Markus Schulze wrote:

> Dear Robert,
>
> are you the questioner at 00:42:00 -- 00:44:25?

it could be.  i dunno if i wanna load the video again and figure that  
out.  i was pointing out that the purpose we adopted IRV in the first  
place was to relieve the split majority the burden of strategic  
voting in the form of compromising.  the liberal majority did not  
have to make a painful choice between Prog and Dem as they would with  
the "traditional" ballot.  but that burden wasn't eliminated, but  
transferred to those that preferred Wright first, Kiss not at all,  
and Montroll somewhere in between.  (i like to call them "GOP Prog- 
haters".)  those folks actually caused the Prog to be elected purely  
by marking the GOP as their first choice.  whether it's Nader in 2000  
or Wright in 2009, we should be able to vote for our favorite without  
electing our least favorite.  but this minority group wanted to just  
toss that burden back to the majority group and i wanted to know if  
the anti-IRVers understood that and how they thought that it's better  
to burden the majority.

i was interrupted before i could frame the question and they said  
they didn't understand the question and didn't answer it.

the thing that was very irritating to me was that the pro-IRV folks  
surely didn't come to this knife fight with their knives sharpened.   
i couldn't even tell that they brought their knives.  there were so  
many dumb things the anti-IRV side said that should have been pounced  
on and was let go.

Terry Bouricius is also a Burlington resident and is known in  
Burlington for being the primary promoter of IRV (i think that's  
right, ain't it Terry?).  i didn't see him at the debate, but Rep.  
Mark Larson and someone from League of Women Voters were on the pro- 
IRV side and they didn't come fightin', in my opinion.  and part of  
the problem is that *they* didn't really understand or acknowledge  
the cascade of anomalies that resulted when the IRV election fails to  
elect the Condorcet winner as it did in 2009.

and, i'm not sure who, but someone introduced a measure in the state  
legislature to elected the governor by IRV (there is a perennial Prog  
candidate that doesn't get any traction because Vermont is not all  
like Burlington or Brattleboro).  but we know (and Kathy won't let us  
forget) that IRV is not "precinct summable" and that would be a  
ridiculous mess for a statewide election (they would have to transmit  
via internet, individual ballot data to the capitol for tabulation  
and then securely bring up a disk or thumb drive (and the original  
paper ballots) with the ballot data up for verification on a later  
date.  it's not so instant if the central counting location is  
distant.  more so now (after the IRV repeal), but that bill had  
essentially zero chance of being passed by the legislature and the  
introduction of it was not well conceived.  and that also should be a  
lesson to FairVote regarding where (and why) they should be marketing  
IRV.

i'm still mostly bent outa shape that wherever Preferential Voting  
was introduced to some population for use in government, it is also  
introduced only with the STV method of tabulation (under whatever  
name: "IRV" "RCV").  what a sad mistake.  i really think that  
FairVote and other IRV promoters should soberly assess the product  
that they are selling instead of continuing to focus on how they're  
gonna market it.  IRV is bound to screw up again and will, by  
association, sully the ranked ballot.

--

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."