[EM] re Unger wrt tabulation

[robert bristow-johnson]

On 2/2/12 3:40 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
>
>
>     From: robert bristow-johnson <rbj at audioimagination.com
>     <mailto:rbj at audioimagination.com>>
>     To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
>     <mailto:election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
>     Cc:
>     Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 14:36:11 -0500
>     Subject: Re: [EM] Unger, wrt tabulation.
>     On 2/2/12 2:16 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
>
>         I do change my mind.  The fact I haven't wrt IRV is because I
>         got a good case and it is a huge non sequitur to presume that
>         "the" solution to the US's political problems is for it to
>         become an EU-style multi-party system....
>
>
>     careful, David.  a hard-won reform that performs poorly the
>     *second* time it's used, sets *back* the movement for voting
>     reform.  it's important that we get this right, not just change it
>     from the status quo.
>
>
> But it didn't perform poorly.
>

other than electing the wrong candidate (and all the anomalies that 
resulted), i guess it didn't do too bad.

> As far as we know, the sort of graft discovered about the Progressive 
> party's mayor was par for the course, but it got revealed as part of a 
> campaign to hurt the Prog party.

the political and legal difficulties of the Kiss administration is non 
sequitur.  the failure of IRV in 2009 does not stem from any political 
failures afterward.  the failure of IRV is because it didn't do in 2009 
what it was promised to do.  it literally did not protect voters from a 
spoiler situation that (if IRV continued to be the law) leads to 
tactical voting.

>  When the IRV rule didn't elect the CW in an unusually 3-way 
> competitive election, it became vulnerable to a serious campaign 
> against it.

well the main group of detractors were not the supporters of the 
candidate that became the CW.  most of the CW supporters as well as the 
CW himself, opposed the repeal question in 2010.  most of the detractors 
were supporters of the plurality candidate that could not accept that 
one of the reason we adopted IRV in the first place was that sometimes 
it would not elect the plurality candidate.  if IRV always elected the 
plurality candidate, what point is there in adopting it?

-- 

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."