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

[David L Wetzell]

The variations in "x", particularly among low-info voters as we
predominantly have in the USA, are too small to put a lot of time/energy
into trying to get it perfect.  It just lowers the p because of the
proliferation of election rules trying to become numero uno.

But how else do we make "more local" elections become  competitive and
interesting than thru the use of multi-winner PR elections?

dlw

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
>>> If I've read you correctly here, it seems to me that you should sign the
>>> statement. You agree with everything it says, even if you wish it said some
>>> other things. And if you're truly being open-minded about this, you will
>>> want to avoid the circular logic involved in not signing. ("I won't sign it
>>> because it doesn't have wide enough support.")
>>>
>>
>> dlw: Ah, but I can't support giving a lot of attention to single-winner
>> reforms when the empirical evidence suggests that it's the mix of
>> multi-winner and single-winner that is of far greater import.
>>
>>
> Seriously? You won't eat our chips and fish, because that's the wrong way
> around?
>
> Jameson
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111123/c911ee2d/attachment-0004.htm>