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

[Michael Garman]

>  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.

For sure. It's a reasonable argument.

I think the principal consideration to bear in mind is where the opposition
is coming from and what their arguments are. If I were an activist in a
community where the prevailing opinion was that reform was necessary, I'd
be all for having a debate about the merits of different methods and the
relative logistical complications they might pose.

My concern right now is that most people aren't open to *any* reform, and
if the public-facing image they see is a reform movement that can't even
agree on a measure to push, they'll be even more skeptical. Not that we
can't or shouldn't have these debates, of course. But I think the Seattle
2022 example -- where the IRV supporters were at fault! -- is exactly the
opposite of what we want to happen. Overall support for the first part of
the question -- the one that was essentially "should we scrap FPP?" was way
lower than it would have been if there hadn't been confusion over competing
proposals and the impression of a fractured reform community.

I'm all for convincing people of the need for reform first and foremost and
then convincing them of specific methods later. Now, you could argue that
certain reforms would turn the public off the idea of structural change
once and for all, and I'd take those concerns seriously.

On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 8:07 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20240325/5861f970/attachment.htm>