[EM] You gave the right description of FairVote

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

Kathy Dop wrote:

Actually, if we support the adoption of proportional representation,
it is a good reason to strongly oppose IRV and STV which will sour the
public on any notions of changing US electoral systems for decades and
greatly hinder any progress towards proportional systems.  We've
already seen this occur in jurisdictions where IRV has been tried and
rejected when it was noticed how overly complex, transparency
eviscerating, and fundamentally unfair IRV methods are.  Right now
there is a push to get rid of it in San Franscisco.  IRV was tried
decades ago in NYC and stopped progress there for decades.

IRV/STV methods introduce problems plurality does not have and do not
solve any of plurality's problems, so it's a great way to convince
people not to implement any new electoral method and show people how
deviously dishonest the proponents of alternative electoral methods
can be.  (Fair Vote lied to people by convincing them that IRV finds
majority winners and solves the spoiler problem, would save money, and
on and on...)

[endquote]

Well said. Yes, "deviously dishonest" is the right description for
FairVote's tactics. Having someone like Rob Richie as the high-profile
well-funded "representative" of electoral reform in this country is
a big embarrassment for electoral reform.

Mike Ossipoff