[EM] Response to Kristofer Musterhjelm

[Jameson Quinn]

Again, I find your arguments plausible, but fragile. That is, you have a
plan which could work, if various unknowns all fall in line the way you
reasonably expect they will. Meanwhile, you seem to be arguing that it
would be better if others abandoned conflicting plans, and joined you.

I know that sounds harsh and perhaps patronizing. I do not intend it as
such. If electoral reform were an easy problem, the progressive movement
(which had many resources we don't) would have solved it. Since it is a
hard problem, it's much easier to pick holes in other people's strategies
for reform than to come up with a good one yourself. So when you're
proposing positive action and I'm sniping, I think third parties should
always give you the benefit of the doubt.

But it seems you're not just proposing positive action. You're also
implicitly sniping at non-IRV ideas when you say that, since IRV has a
first-mover advantage, we should all support it.

My perspective on that is: imagine that, 10 years from now (or 5 or 20...
the number doesn't matter) voting reform has been a resounding success. How
much value would we assign to the patient groundwork of Fairvote up until
now? Certainly not none, but I think it's hard to deny that the bulk of the
work remains to be done. So say they've done 1/3 of the work. That means
that if some other system is 1/3 easier to get implemented, then it's a
tie. I think that the differences between systems are easily of that
magnitude. Obviously I'm getting these numbers from an unspecified
location, but it's just to make a point; you can use whatever numbers you
like and see if my point holds for you.


> KM:You are right that we have been divided. I hope the declaration helps.
>> Whether it does, time will tell, but it might, particularly if authorities
>> within the field sign it.
>>
>
> dlw: Endorsing 4 election rules and waving your hands over IRV hardly
> seems very helpful.
>

Problem: lack of consensus.
Solution 1: propose that everyone should just agree with you on all points.
Solution 2: start with the minimal consensus you can achieve and build from
there.

"No, solution 2 is thinking too small."

Jameson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111107/a8720ba1/attachment-0004.htm>