[EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

[David L Wetzell]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>wrote:

> What kind of evidence would convince you to change your mind about IRV?
> How about on IRV3/AV3 resolving most of IRV's problems? (I believe that
> using 3-slot+unapproved ballots and implicit approval to run
> approval/runoff, which I guess in your notation is IRV3/AV2, would, but
> don't agree that IRV3/AV3 would).


dlw: 1. IRV is effectively the leading contender to replace FPTP in the US.
(We agree on this, even if we don't like it, right?)

2. If you're going to attack IRV then you got to have an alternative
(singular) to replace it with.  4 potential replacements do not cut it.  In
the US's current system, there can only be one alternative to FPTP at a
time.  If we push for multiple alternatives then the defenders of the
status quo will divide and defeat us.

3. Let X be the quality of an election rule.  Let p be its chances of
implementation over fptp in the US's current system.
Then Xirv doesn't need to be > Xother.  Xirv*p(irv) needs to be greater
than Xother*p(other) for IRV to deserve its place as the key alternative to
FPTP.

4. This is why I pick away at how the args in favor of other election rules
get watered down or annihilated when you make the homo politicus / rational
choice assumptions more "realistic" or you reduce the number of effective
candidates, or you consider how perceived biases/errors get averaged out
over time and space, or you focus on the import of marketing and how IRV
has the advantage in that area of critical importance to the probability of
successful replacement of FPTP.

5. It's not a religious commitment to IRV on my part.  My
ideological/religious commitment is to subvert the rivalry between the two
major parties and to increase the chances of vulnerable minorities being
swing voters by pushing for a much better mix of single-winner and
multi-winner election rules.  I also support IRV(or IRV3/AV3 (I don't
understand your IRV3/AV2 remark)) to replace FPTP in single-winner
elections.  I want others to turn away from or tone down their debating of
rival single-winner alternatives, whose probability of success in the near
future is effectively much lower than IRV, to focus more on what I believe
is the most needful electoral reform in the USA today.

dlw
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111122/da9f159a/attachment-0004.htm>