[EM] re Unger wrt tabulation

[David L Wetzell]

>
>
>> dlw:       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....
>>
>>
>>      RBJcareful, 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.
>>
>>
>> dlw2: 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.
>

When you try out a new piece of technology, you can't expect to get it
right right away.  A democracy is a function of both the rules and people's
habits.  If GOPers had seen that their party couldn't win then some of them
wd've voted Dem first and the CW wd have won....

>
>  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.
>

To prevent all tactical voting is not the greatest good.  Since parties can
change their positions, to pressure the supporters of a major party that
refuses to move towards the true center is in the public interest, and that
requires allowing for the possibility of a "spoiler".

>
>   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?
>

See, follow the money... we can't point to reversals as definitive KOs of
particular rules, because people don't understand electoral theory and can
be manipulated too easily.

dlw
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20120203/378a613f/attachment-0004.htm>