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

[Jameson Quinn]

>
>
> If FairVote continues on its marketing of IRV and we do nothing, yes, IRV
> is more likely to be adopted than Condorcet, at least in the short term.
>
> I'd like to expand on Kristofer's point just a bit. The fact is, it's not
true that we're going to do nothing. I see basically 3 possibilities:
1. Things continue as they are today; IRV has limited and inadequate wins,
mixed with setbacks.
2. Fairvote's success goes on an increasing curve, and at some point IRV
reaches a tipping point and becomes commonly-used in countries where it
hadn't been before.
3. Some other organization pushes some other system(s), and reaches a
tipping point.

I definitely see why any unbiased observer would say that 1 is more
probable than 2 or 3; but I see no reason to believe that 2 is more
probable than 3. In the US, FairVote had a very good chance with the 2000
election, and got inadequate mileage out of that. So sure, 3 means a lot of
work for people like me, but I personally see it as more likely than 2.

The upshot is, sure, IRV might be more likely to be adopted, but only in
the inadequate sense of 1. If 2 or 3 are necessary, then I'd rather throw
my weight behind the one I honestly believe in.

Jameson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111127/9b9067dc/attachment-0004.htm>