<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I think before I can really sink into and “get” the ideas expressed here, I need to do what I am doing and take myself to Voting System 101 school, starting with mastering the basics truths and nuances of Criteria.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I mention this because it is my absolute plan to read your thorough post, absorb, and respond, but first I need to get my feet underneath me, so to speak. So I will keep this post in my box as I try to learn the basics – which could take a while – but then, I will return to it, if that’s alright.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Thanks! </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:#1F497D'>J</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-ligatures:standard'>-Benn Grant<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-ligatures:standard'>eFix Computer Consulting<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-ligatures:standard'><a href="mailto:benn@4efix.com"><span style='color:#0563C1'>benn@4efix.com</span></a><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-ligatures:standard'>603.283.6601<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> election-methods-bounces@lists.electorama.com [mailto:election-methods-bounces@lists.electorama.com] <b>On Behalf Of </b>David L Wetzell<br><b>Sent:</b> Sunday, June 16, 2013 4:13 PM<br><b>To:</b> EM<br><b>Subject:</b> [EM] A dissent for Ben<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>I am an apologist for the (at least) strategic support of IRV in the USA by progressives/centrists, as pushed by FairVote as the leading alternative to FPTP and what is to be taught to the low-info voters of the USA whose interest in electoral analytics is significantly bounded.<br><br>I believe that the diffs among the infinite number of alternatives to FPTP are often over-stated in a world where economies of scale in campaigning in important single-member/winner elections plus cognitive short-cuts commonly used by voters reduces the number of competitive candidates. <br><br>This is a major diff between my view and most of the others on this list. They believe that when the right single-winner election rule is adopted that the natural number of competitive candidates will grow so that there'll be a need for the right single-winner election rule. I have a different prior that is more conservative in how much the number of competitive candidates will increase and that cares more about the increased quality vs quantity of candidates. I also am of the view that the way of wisdom in a 2-party-dominated system that tends to tilt to effective single-party-domination is to push for election rule changes that won't end 2-party domination but will subvert the tilt and change the nature of the 2-party domination, making it contested and open for small local third-parties who specialize in contesting "more local" elections and vote strategically togetehr in "less local" elections to proliferate. <br><br>This is why I also emph American forms of Proportional Representation, or low-grade forms of proportional represetnation for "more local" elections that o.w. tend to be chronically non-competitive. There are feedbacks between different elections and so the increased plurality caused by the use of Am forms of PR in "more local" elections can make the single-winner election rules in less-local elections be more competitive, since the rivalry between the two major parties wd be handicapped. Think of it as like how there's ad-revenue-sharing in professional foot-ball but not baseball and so there's more turnaround as to whose the top team in the latter than the former and a higher percent of competitive, and thereby interesting games. <br><br>IOW, we don't need to figure out the best single-winner election rule, a souped-up version of IRV wd suffice to make things work a lot better. We need to persuade the US that we need a mix of single-winner and multi-winner elections and that such can and has been done in a manner consistent with our political traditions. As such, I am apt to believe that the first-mover marketing edge of IRV and the way our system currently winnows down options, makes it wise to hold off on pushing for other alternatives to FPTP or (top two primary). <br><br>This view is, of course, anathema to many of those who've invested a lot of time, etc. into the array of electoral alternatives. <o:p></o:p></p><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal>dlw<o:p></o:p></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div></div></body></html>