[EM] This is a repost for the benefit of Mr. Garman of RankTheVote

[robert bristow-johnson]

> On 03/20/2024 3:04 PM EDT Michael Garman <michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
> 
> 
> I agree, it’s not a perfect system. The fact that you’re only able to point to two failures from over 500 elections is a sign that it’s a significant upgrade from what we’ve got now, though.
> 

No, it's not.  It fails (unnecessarily) on its promise.  Of those 500 elections, circa 300 had two or fewer candidates on the ballot.  RCV will not do **anything** different for those election.

Of the 200 that were left, about 14 (maybe 20 by this date) had "come-from-behind" victories.  Those were the only RCV elections where RCV would have performed differently than FPTP.  Of those 14 or so, the **only** justification you can make for electing the IRV winner over the plurality winner is that, when compared head-to-head more voters preferred the IRV winner over the plurality winner even though the latter had more first-choice votes.  But that is exactly the reason why the Condorcet winner should be elected over the IRV winner.

IRV has no simple principle.  Condorcet does:  One-person-one-vote.  Everyone's vote counts equally.  If more voters mark their ballots preferring Candidate A to Candidate B than the number of voters marking their ballots to the contrary, at least let's not elect Candidate B.

IRV fails that simple and fundamental principle of elections in participatory democracies.  It also fails the simple and fundamental principle of Process Transparency that we call Precinct Summability.

> I’m not saying it’s perfect. I never have.

But you're in denial about the failures and the significance of the failures.  You're also in denial about other falsehoods that the marketing people continue to say about RCV.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

> All I’m saying is that Ossipoff’s argument that voters who have to pick between IRV and FPP should pick the latter is absurd. 
> 

It's not absurd if IRV literally fails to deliver on the promise for which it was adopted.  That's what you don't get.

Like in Burlington 2009/2010, the repeal movement in Alaska is being grossly underestimated.  They had nearly twice the number of signatures needed to put it on the November ballot.  It doesn't look too good for RCV in Alaska and it's likely to be repealed.

That's what happens when you over-promise and under-deliver.  Shit happens.  It's way past time to start taking responsibility for that, rather than just denying.

--

r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

.
.
.