[EM] Fwd: how goes American PR?

robert bristow-johnson rbj at audioimagination.com
Sat Dec 3 13:02:12 PST 2011

thank you, Jan.  well put.  i would prefer to be on the same side as Rob 
Ritchie and FairVote, but i just cannot abide with the IRV happy talk.  
it was a mistake to bundle and sell the Hare/STV method of tabulation 
along with the ranked-ballot.  and, unfortunately in Burlington, both 
were rejected together as a bundle.  the ranked ballot was rejected 
along with IRV and the pathologies associated with it.


r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

On 12/3/11 3:37 PM, Jan Kok wrote:
> If Richie/FairVote wants to focus their energy on pushing proportional
> representation, that's wonderful! I personally won't "quibble" about
> PR methods, and will support and vote for pretty much any PR method.
> However, there will always be a need for single-winner methods, for
> single-winner offices such as president, governor and mayor.
> The US President's power is huge. He can veto bills passed by
> Congress, and he can start wars. And now, de facto, can even order
> assassinations of US citizens.
> So, it's important that we have good single-winner election methods to
> make the best possible choices of winners for single-winner offices.
> IRV/RCV is a poor method. It can make poor choices of winners, such as
> in the 2009 Burlington, VT mayor's race, and is more complicated than
> other methods. The complexity makes it difficult to sell to voters,
> some of whom are _extremely_ resistant to change. The complexity also
> makes it more expensive to count the votes, and makes IRV elections
> more vulnerable to fraud. And when IRV gets rejected or repealed, as
> it has in several places, it poisons the well, making it harder to
> introduce other, better voting methods.
> So, as long as there are people pushing IRV, let the quibbling (about
> single-winner methods) continue!
> - Jan
> On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 10:09 AM, David L Wetzell<wetzelld at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> American PR is a coming.  You must decide if you want to keep quibbling over
>> the best single-winner election rule or push hard for a better mix of multi
>> and single-winner election rules in the US.
>> dlw
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Rob Richie<rr at fairvote.org>
>> Date: Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 11:05 AM
>> Subject: Re: how goes American PR?
>> To: David L Wetzell<wetzelld at gmail.com>
>> A little slow in getting our American PR-like plans drawn, but we'll have
>> them done for hte whole country in early 2012 and heat up in our outreach...
>> getting some related opeds.
>> Next year should be a good one for the idea --  lots of chances to talk
>> about it.
>> Rob
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:26 PM, David L Wetzell<wetzelld at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I wonder if tea-partiers unhappy w. the Republican party might get in on
>>> it?
>>> dlw
>> --
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> "Respect for Every Vote and Every Voice"
>> Rob Richie
>> Executive Director
>> FairVote
>> 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 610
>> Takoma Park, MD 20912
>> www.fairvote.org  rr at fairvote.org
>> (301) 270-4616
>> Please support FairVote through action and tax-deductible donations -- see
>> http://fairvote.org/donate. For federal employees, please consider  a gift
>> to us through the Combined Federal Campaign (FairVote's  CFC number is
>> 10132.) Thank you!
>> ----
>> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list