Richard Moore wrote: > I disagree -- IRV would make a poor stepping stone.
> [Discussion of IRV's technical shortcomings snipped.] > Passing IRV only seems likely if it is sold on the false advertising > claim that it fixes the spoiler problem. IRV is a winnable candidate for election reform, and like many winnable candidates its supporters make some false promises. I'd rather have some form of Condorcet, Range Voting or Approval -- but they're not serious contenders at the moment. Whenever I introduce people to alternative voting systems, I always make sure to mention Condorcet -- but I usually point them to the Fairvote website, because it seems to me that IRV advocates do a *MUCH* better job of educating the public than Condorcet supporters do. IMHO, Condorcet supporters seem a lot more interested in attacking IRV, than they do helping out with any serious election reform. > So 5 years after IRV is passed, if a better solution is proposed, the > public will very likely be divided into two major camps. The first > camp will say, "IRV was supposed to fix the spoiler problem, but look > how it failed. How can we trust this new-fangled system to be any > better?" The second camp will say, "Why do we need a new system? We > fixed the spoiler problem 5 years ago!" That's a problem, but I think a far less serious one than the problem of inertia. You're leaving out a third camp -- which I think would be bigger than the other two -- who will say "Now that we have a better understanding of how different voting systems work, let's try to figure out which one is best!" That is, after all, how many people who had previously supported IRV eventually became interested in Condorcet in the first place. IRV may be a flawed system, but IRV supporters are not the enemy. They *should* be treated like allies. -Bill Clark -- Dennis Kucinich for President in 2004 http://www.kucinich.us/ ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info