[EM] piling on against IRV (was ... Czech Green party - Council elections)

[Jameson Quinn]

>
>
>>  Letting loose can be very difficult - but many of us are urging FairVote
> to swallow the bitter pill.


I manned phones, made donations to FairVote, and voted, to help pass IRV in
San Francisco. And I now, personally, think that IRV is considerably worse
than most systems besides plurality and Borda - including Range, Bucklin,
Approval, and a wide variety of Condorcet systems.

But I'm not asking FairVote to "swallow the bitter pill". I think you have
every right to continue promoting IRV, if that's what you believe in. I'm
just asking you what I've always asked, since the time when I still counted
myself as one of your strongest supporters: that you be honest and open
about it. That means 3 things:

1. Don't denigrate other solutions to problems you acknowledge. In fact, I
think you should support them. That means that whenever comparing IRV to
another reform proposal, make it clear from the outset that the other
proposal is superior to plurality (except in the very rare cases where it
isn't).
2. Don't lie about the benefits of IRV. For instance, unless full ranking is
mandatory, IRV does not guarantee a majority. You could say instead that it
"does a better job of getting a majority" than plurality, or whatever.
3. Be open to dialogue with other voting reformers. For instance, don't turn
off comments on all your blogs and HuffPost pieces, and don't moderate out
relevant but critical posts on the instantrunoff mailing list. I know that
it hurts, because there are definitely people with much more of an animus
against IRV than I have, but the problems in running away from dialogue are
worse.

With respect,
Jameson Quinn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20100506/0e9c984c/attachment-0004.htm>