I'm mostly a lurker on this list, but I'd like to respond to your letter.
(1) IRV is better than plurality. I'm assuming that you and most everyone on this list agrees with this.
(2) It is easier to explain IRV than Condorcet.
Convincing a group to change from plurality to any other voting system is really hard. IRV is easier to explain because it is similar to a runoff election. While Condorcet isn't so hard to explain when a winner exists, the concept of cycles is very difficult to explain to the average person. I think your letter is much too complicated for its intended audience. People aren't going to get it.
(3) IRV could be a stepping stone to Condorcet.
I don't think it makes sense to sabotage efforts to enact IRV. If anything I think it makes more sense to support IRV as a stepping stone to Condorcet. Once people are familiar with ranked ballots, they can more easily be persuaded to consider Condorcet.
(4) Approval doesn't help get to Condorcet.
While approval voting is certainly easy to explain, you have to get around peoples' knee-jerk reactions of "one person one vote." (I know that OPOV is only about redistricting, but most people don't). Also approval doesn't provide you with a good stepping stone to Condorcet.
(5) Condorcet and Approval may violate state constitutions. This is beyond the scope of this email, but something to think about.
In summary, the practical and legal issues are as important as the theoretical issues.
Jeff
From: "MIKE OSSIPOFF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fairly recently messages have been posted here about IRV proposals for particular communties or states. A recent such message was about Utah. Could someone re-post the e-mail addresses at which I could write to the people considering those IRV proposals, or the e-mail addresses of the local newspapers there?
I tried to reply earlier today, but it turned out that I'd merely posted my letter to an IRV mailing list. That's ok too, but I want to write to the people who are considering IRV as a public proposal, and to the newspaper in the cities where that's being considered.
The IRV promoters will push their nonreform through everywhere they want to, if we're so busy discussing things more theoretical that we don't take time to communicate with the people who have only heard the IRV promoters and who are considering accepting their proposal. And, as I said, newspapers in cities where IRV is being considered.
We can stop IRV. IRV can't get adopted anywhere where people have heard of its problems. Anywhere where people have heard from anyone other than the IRV promoters.
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
