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

[Jameson Quinn]

I think it would be great if we could unite all the activists, theorists,
and academics behind a single plan for system-wide election reform. I would
get behind such a plan in a heartbeat, even if I thought it was flawed in
its details.

But that is, demonstrably, not happening.

David, you do not have a choice between a world where you agree with
others, and a world where they agree with you. You have a choice between a
world where you agree with others, and a world where you don't. That's the
only part you get to decide.

I honestly believe that the statement, as it is, is going to bring the
broadest possible consensus. To convince me to favor changing it, you'd
have to convince me otherwise.

Why do I care more about the breadth of consensus than about which reforms
are most likely to pass in the short term? Because I think that short-term
thinking is, well, shortsighted. Fairvote has some hard-won accomplishments
behind it, yes. But honestly, the distance they've come is a small fraction
of the total effort it's going to take to reform the whole voting system in
the US (or Guatemala where I live, or the UK, or...). Given where we are in
that larger context, I think that the most effective I can possibly be is
by trying to promote the broadest consensus possible.

Jameson

2011/11/24 David L Wetzell <wetzelld at gmail.com>

> 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/20111124/29af4ae1/attachment-0004.htm>