[EM] No. Condorcet and Hare do not share the same problem with computational complexity and process transparency.

[Closed Limelike Curves]

That's essentially my concern... I don't think IRV is meaningfully
different from FPP (mutual majority is a plus, but the cost, complexity,
etc. is a big minus, and the elephant in the room is negative response).
The real issue is it's likely to screw over STAR, score, or Condorcet
proposals.

On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 12:07 PM Kristofer Munsterhjelm <
km_elmet at t-online.de> wrote:

> On 2024-03-20 09:57, Michael Garman wrote:
> > To be clear, I am by no means a believer that IRV is the only reform
> > worth pursuing, or that it’s anywhere close to the perfect system.
> >
> > Where Michael and I disagree is on the role of pragmatism. I believe
> > that any time an alternative to plurality voting is on the ballot,
> > voters should support it. I think the folks in Eugene, Oregon, should
> > vote yes on STAR. I think more places should try out approval. Beyond
> > those three, I read this list because I enjoy learning about completely
> > new and different systems that would be fascinating to see in practice
> > somewhere one day. But in a place where citizens are asked for an up or
> > down vote on IRV vs. FPTP, I don’t see how you can defend voting for the
> > worst possible system because the proposed reform isn’t exactly what
> > you’d like.
>
> What do you think about the following reasoning? Call it the "fool me
> twice" problem.
>
> Suppose that a jurisdiction is considering switching from FPTP to Borda.
> The main organization is heavily marketing Borda as the one ranked
> voting system, equating the ranked ballot format to Borda, the method.
>
> Meanwhile, an organization promoting MDDA (majority defeat
> disqualification approval) is slowly growing. Someone (call him John)
> favors MDDA and thinks that due to Borda's clone problem, it will
> quickly be repealed. Then, he reasons, the jurisdiction will think that
> ranking equals Borda, so that when some other ranked method is proposed
> (MDDA, say), they will remember the failure of Borda that led to its
> repeal and say "no; fool me twice, shame on me".
>
> Suppose for the sake of argument that there is a considerable chance
> that Borda would be repealed if it were enacted, and a lesser chance
> that MDDA would. Is then John in the right to withhold his support for
> Borda? Would it be right for the MDDA organization to try to counter the
> Borda organization's marketing by saying more ranked methods exist, even
> if doing so reduces the chance that Borda is enacted?
>
> Note that I'm not asking if you think the fool me twice problem is
> likely to happen with IRV. Just whether it's reasonable for someone who
> thinks enacting a (to his mind) flawed method can cause a backlash, to
> not go for that method.
>
> -km
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
> info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240324/48a8b165/attachment-0001.htm>