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

[David L Wetzell]

Let me start off by saying that I'm thankful for this list-serve of people
passionate about electoral reform
and that you put together a working consensus statement.  I'm trying to
work it some more...

My belief is that the US's system makes it necessary to frame electoral
reform simply and to limit the options proffered.  This is what FairVote
does and they do it well.  If you're going to undercut their marketing
strategy then ethically the burden of proof is on you wrt providing a
clear-cut alternative to IRV3.  Your statement provide several solutions.
This is not a clear-cut alternative.  I argue for IRV3/AV3 as such an
alternative, for it addresses your critiques.  It also could be pitched in
such a way as permits FairVote to save face and retain its leadership role
in electoral reform in the US, which increases the chances that they and
others switch to it.

And so what about IRV3/AV3?  Is that not worth at least including in your
statement, along with the phrase "American forms of Proportional
Representation", which is likely going to be getting big due to the
leadership of FairVote in this coming year?

I'll likely sign it, but I feel conflicted because of the reasons I mention
above, and want some due process over these ideas first.

dlw



On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 4:52 AM, Jameson Quinn <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>wrote:

> I absolutely agree. We should not waste energy fighting over which
> election system is the ideal. For instance, if we are given the opportunity
> to sign a statement which clearly states some of the problems with the
> current system and supports several solutions we believe would help,
> including giving weak support to the solutions we consider best, we should
> sign it, not waste our energy criticizing the precise levels of support it
> gives to the various options.
>
> The statement is supportive of PR, and it also clearly says that IRV has
> advantages over plurality.
>
> Jameson
>
>
> 2011/11/23 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>
>
>> 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/20111124/e62c65b7/attachment-0004.htm>