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

[robert bristow-johnson]

On 11/24/11 2:20 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
> 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.

but they should be *good* options.  limiting the proffered options to 
IRV is proven by our experience in Vermont to eventually fail.

>   This is what FairVote does and they do it well.

no they don't.  FairVote sells ranked-choice voting and the IRV/STV 
method of tabulating the ranked ballots as if they are the same thing.  
i.e., once they convince voters, city councilors, and legislators that 
ranked-choice voting is a good thing (by accurately pointing out what is 
wrong with FPTP in a multiparty context and/or viable independent 
candidates), they present IRV as it is the only solution.  that 
backfired BIG TIME here in Burlington Vermont.

>   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.

Condorcet.

which Condorcet method i am not so particular about, but simplicity is 
good.  Schulze may be the best from a functional POV (resistance to 
strategy) but, while i have a lot of respect for Markus, the Schulze 
method appears complicated and will be a hard sell.  i also do not think 
that cycles will be common in governmental elections and am convinced 
that when a cycle rarely occurs, it will never involve more than 3 
candidates in the Smith set.  given a bunch of Condorcet-compliant 
methods that all pick the same winner in the 3-candidate Smith set, the 
simplest method should be the one marketed to the public and to legislators.

--

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."