[EM] hmmm. Maybe I missed something before SF passed IRV then called it RCV?

[robert bristow-johnson]

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------

Subject: Re: [EM] hmmm. Maybe I missed something before SF passed IRV then called it RCV?

From: "Kristofer Munsterhjelm" <km_elmet at t-online.de>

Date: Tue, July 4, 2017 7:43 pm

To: "Sennet Williams" <sennetwilliams at yahoo.com>

"election-methods at lists.electorama.com" <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------



>

> The blowup scenario could go like this:

> - IRV is used in more and more places

> - Voters think it's now possible for a third party to grow

> - Third parties grow until they're competitive with the two main parties

> - IRV gets confused in an election and elects the wrong candidate

> - There's a backlash and IRV is repealed

> - Voting reform in general suffers for a long time, because it's

> associated with IRV. E.g. in the fashion of "Oh, you want a better

> voting method? Like IRV? We all saw how that turned out".
thanks for expressing how at least one Burlingtonian (that voted no on the repeal IRV ballot question) feels.


>

> If the blowup scenario is realistic, then it doesn't matter whether IRV

> has momentum. If anything, focusing on just one method is bad, because

> if it fails, the backlash will be all that more severe. It would be

> better to try a variety of methods: Range in one place, Condorcet

> somewhere else, IRV a third place; and see how they do before going

> national.
i still think Range asks too much from the voters and they're gonna simply saturate their vote for their favorite.  it will be like Plurality scaled by 10.



--
r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20170705/8d815984/attachment.htm>