[EM] Chicken or Egg re: Kathy Dopp

[David L Wetzell]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kathy Dopp <kathy.dopp at gmail.com>
To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
Cc:
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:11:11 -0500
Subject: Re: [EM] Egg or Chicken.
> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:59:14 -0600
> From: David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
>
> if we push hard for the use of American Proportional Representation it'll
> give third parties a better chance to win seats and they will prove great
> labs for experimentation with electoral reform.
>
> This is also a good reason to strategically support IRV, since we can
trust
> that with changes, there'll be more scope for experimentation and
> consideration of multiple alternatives to FPTP.

KD: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.

dlw: That is what is in dispute.

KD: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.

dlw: Unfair?  Why because it emulates the workings of a caucus by
considering only one vote per voter at a time?

dlw: If a 2-stage approach is used then it's less complex and the results
can be tabulated at the precinct level.

dlw: I'm sure the Cold War red scare stopped progress in NYC and elsewhere
a lot more than "IRV"....

KD: 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...)

dlw: It's called marketing.  FairVote wisely simplified the benefits of
IRV.  IRV does find majority winners a lot more often than FPTP and it
reduces the spoiler problem considerably.  It does save money compared with
a two round approach and its' "problems" are easy to fix.

dlw

Kathy Dopp
http://electionmathematics.org
Town of Colonie, NY 12304
"One of the best ways to keep any conversation civil is to support the
discussion with true facts."
"Renewable energy is homeland security."

Fundamentals of Verifiable Elections
http://kathydopp.com/wordpress/?p=174

View some of my research on my SSRN Author page:
http://ssrn.com/author=1451051
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111216/f0af5f3c/attachment-0003.htm>