<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7638.1">
<TITLE>Re: [EM] On Naming and Advocacy</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText25041 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><BR>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Jan Kok
[mailto:jan.kok.5y@gmail.com]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wed 6/21/2006 10:48
AM<BR><B>To:</B> Simmons, Forest<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [EM] On Naming and
Advocacy<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>On 6/21/06, Simmons, Forest <simmonfo@up.edu>
wrote:<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> Jan,<BR>><BR>> It seems to me that
decoupling the method from the framework would make it<BR>> less likely for
IRV to get enacted.<BR><BR>Why? (asks Jan)</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>Forest replies:</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>Divide and conquer. Eat a bagel in two small bites
instead of one big bite.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>If ranked ballots are not decoupled from IRV, then ranked
ballots will usually entail IRV. And since many folks have the good sense
to realize that IRV is not enough of an improvement on Plurality to justify all
of it extra baggage, IRV will fail, and drag down with it the ranked ballot
concept. That is what happened here in Oregon.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>If we unite with IRV supporters to enact ranked ballots, on the
condition that the "back end" will be decided later, then we can get ranked
ballots enacted, and the back end decided in a less charged atmosphere.
Many IRV supporters, will come over to our side. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>Five years ago during the FairVoteOregon campaign which
unsuccessfully tried to get IRV on a state iniative here, I made a presentation
to the movers and shakers of that campaign, suggesting several alternatives, in
particular Approval and what some people are now calling
IRV-BTR. They weren't ready to make those changes at that
stage of the game. Almost all of them were Green Party
members (like myself) who had heard Ralph Nader (in the 2000 presidential
campaign) suggest IRV as a way of getting more votes for third
parties.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>If I had gotten into the fray earlier and suggested that we just
concentrate on the voters being able to specify a ranking or rating (at least as
an option) for use in deciding elections, as a way of overcoming the spoiler
problem, they would have gone along with it. On that basis I and others
like me could have promised them help in getting signatures for the
initiative. As it was, I had to tell them that I could not in good
conscience collect signatures for an IRV initiative. With our lack of support
the initiative failed!</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>By specifying that the bagel had to be eaten in one bite, the
bagel got rejected. I believe the same thing would have happened
no matter what "back end" got coupled with a ranked ballot front
end. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>But uncoupled, there is a better chance of getting support for
the voter specified rankings concept, especially if the voters realize that they
have the option of selecting a ranking or rating from a published list with only
one stroke of the pencil.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>In Washington State Rep. Toby Nixon is working on getting
SSD enacted. Because we did not decouple this back end from the ballot
options, it will never get enacted.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>The folks that supported SSD are very happy that they prevailed
with Rep. Nixon, but their victory is rather hollow, because they will have only
the half-hearted support of the losers. Had they decoupled the back end,
they would have had full support from everybody.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>So you see, the one bite approach is not sound
psychologically.</FONT></P>
<P>FWS</P>
<P><FONT size=2></FONT> </P></DIV>
</BODY>
</HTML>