[EM] Clarification re: IRV statementd

[Michael Ossipoff]

I'd said something to the effect:

IRV [has] a powerfully valuable combination of
criterion-compliances--very helpful to some factions under some
circumstances.

[endquote]

Of course even Plurality is helpful to _someone_, in this case the two
tv-promoted parties and their owners.

So what i said above doesn't sound like a very valid good thing about IRV.

But, as I've said, there's nothing wrong with government by a cohesive
majority (the favored group in IRV). There's nothing undemocratic
about that.

Nevertheless, IRV will always have a disfavored group, the group that
isn't in the mutual majority. In fact, in that mutual majority, a CW
faction that is losing because of the squeeze-effect could be called
"disfavored" too.

So, though IRV isn't undemocratic, there will always be people who
should oppose it, vote against it if there's an initiative or
referendum on voting systems.

Oppose IRV if you aren't in a mutual majority. As I said, we won't
know till later, whether the progressive majority is a mutual one.

"There was a little girl, and she had a little curl
Right in the middle of her forehead.

"When she was good, she was very very good
But when she was bad, she was horrid."

That could be said of IRV.I It's a special-purpose, mutual-majority
favoring method that should be opposed by those who aren't in a mutual
majority, because it gives an automatic win to mutual majorities, but
certainly not to CWs.

It seems to me that when there's a vote to choose a voting system, the
method that is used for that will be likely to win the vote. Voting
systems would tend to choose themselves.

After all, the group that it favors would want it to win.

So, if the Greens (or the Libertarians?) promise that IRV will be the
single-winner system in their new government, and the political system
starts out with IRV, and if IRV is used for the initiative or
referendum to choose a voting system, then maybe that means that IRV
will likely remain the voting-system.

Therefore, the parties should seriously consider whether or not
they're part of a mutual majority, before being sure about starting an
IRV government. Specificallly, the Greens should consider whether the
progressives are a mutual majority--Are there any progressive parties
who would have strategic incentive to tell their voters to vote the
Democrat over the other progressive candidates?

That might not be known till later, but it might be something to
consider before the time when it matters.











 (...though IRV's FBC failure disqualifies it for use
now, given the electorate's beliefs).