[EM] IRV vs RCV??? responding to the last post,

[robert bristow-johnson]

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

Subject: [EM] IRV vs RCV??? responding to the last post,

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

Date: Fri, June 30, 2017 8:19 pm

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

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



> This is responding to Kathy's bizarre comments:
listen, i had my arguments with Kathy Dopp, but what she said was entirely accurate.
(and you don't wanna engage me in this.  ask Rob Richie.)


> 1st of all, "RCV" is simply a RENAMING of IRV!
only by FairVote.  it's like the Discovery Institute appropriating or usurping the term "Intelligent Design", when that term existed centuries before with teleologists.





>  It is exactly the same counting method and ballot type.  I was at the SF elections commission when the term "Ranked Choice Voting" was suggested as a better name for the election system.  It was an OPPONENT OF RANKED VOTING that created the term.  The (winning)
voters of San Francisco, Berkeley and Oakland all voted for "Instant Runoff Voting,"  but after it passed the cities and media started referring to IRV as RCV BECAUSE OF FAIRVOTE.   FAIRVOTE's goal is to use widespread support for single-winner IRV as a path towards less popular
"Choice Voting", so Fairvote started using the RCV term for that reason.
and it's totally dishonest appropriation of the word.  FairVote does not want to admit the failure of IRV (to deliver on the very promises it makes) in Burlington Vermont when IRV did not elect the
Condorcet Winner.  it was a fucking mess.  Spoiler.  Explicit punishment of voters for choosing their favorite as #1 (that places a burden of tactical voting on voters).  Also, a case for non-monotonicity can be made with that election.
when more voters mark their ballots
that they prefer Candidate A to Candidate B, then why elect Candidate B?  IRV is a crappy way to, most of the time, elect the Condorcet Winner.  If the Condorcet winner is the candidate preferred by voters over every other candidate, why not just elect the Condorcet winner?  why fuck
around with this kabuki dance of transferred votes as does IRV?

> Your comments claiming that IRV is unfair to ANY voters are unexplainable unless you simply don't know the IRV/RCV vote counting process?
I don't think you understand it.
> Maybe you could offer some example or something?
Burlington Vermont mayoral race on Town Meeting Day
2009.

>  Regarding suing for a right to an IRV ballot,  It's a legal fact. If some voters are allowed to choose  IRV, it is unconstitutional to deny that right to the other voters.  There is nothing to debate.   Using this forum to insult me and confuse anyone who might want to
learn the facts has no benefit to anyone. 
Sennet Williams, *you* do not understand what the problem is.

> IRV/RCV is the ONLY election reform making progress in America, and it is building faster and faster.  Rep. Don Beyer (D) just introduced a bill for national RCV(IRV) in congress, A new 1st.
 http://www.democratizeus.com/2017/06/30/congressmans-bill-revolutionize-america-changing-way-elect-representatives/    PR supporters might be thrilled that his bill is basically a type of choice voting (3 member districts), but it will never be passed by the GOP anyway.
 But it will get a LOT of publicity for RCV.   
stop conflating Ranked-Choice Voting with **one** method of implementing it.  (and a lousy method to implement RCV.  only Borda is worse. Bucklin is probably better than IRV, but it's still not Condorcet.)

> I too used to campaign for PR too, but the reality is these debates about which PR system is better are about as useful as debating who can hold their breath the longest.  Besides being illegal for federal elections, Most of the voters and virtually everyone in power is a
Democrat/Republican and they will NEVER switch from simple plurality to PR.   Besides getting donations from 3rd party supporters,  all Fairvote is accomplishing by promoting PR/Choice Voting is confusing  Democrat party leaders afraid of one-winner IRV, which was SERIOUSLY holding
back IRV reform for years, but now the ball is seriously in motion for major IRV reforms by 2020.  The 2000 election failure resulted in in the first major victories for IRV reform, and the 2016 failure will put IRV over the top.----
>
IRV sucks the douchebag.  if you want to reform elections with Ranked Choice Voting,  ***don't*** promote it with IRV.  when it fails again (and it will) that will set back RCV reform for generations.




--
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/20170630/45efc207/attachment-0001.htm>