On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 10:54:36 -0700 (PDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004, Bart Ingles wrote:
I started out on this list in 1998 as an IRV supporter, but now see it as a step in the wrong direction. Back then I believed IRV had properties I considered important (e.g. resistance to low-utility winners in worst-case scenarios), but have long since learned that I was mistaken. Thus it turns out that my support was due to ignorance.
I don't think IRV is a step in the wrong direction. It's still vastly superior to the present single vote system. It solves the simple problems correctly, like any of the systems we consider do. It's just all those "interesting" problems we like to conjure up that trip things.
IRV is better than the ugly ones most of the time. Since it uses the same basic ballot as Condorcet, it even has the voters studying what we want them to learn.
Enough use and I feel certain its flaws will raise the question of WHY NOT go straight to Condorcet, rather than having to propose a second move to get away from IRV:
I feel CERTAIN enough use of IRV will demonstrate the following pattern:
35% are SOLID backers of some "important" position, such as about abortion and many of the other issues that get us hot under the collar.
65% - a SOLID majority - disagree.
Among the 65% there is a new thought that is gaining momentum as an improvement. Backers of the new thought rank its candidate first, and the candidate of the basic majority belief second.
Let the new thought candidate get to 32% and IRV will still see this candidate lose, letting the 65% majority win.
New candidate get a few more votes to 33% and old candidate with 32% loses in IRV; 33% loses to 35%; and we have UNHAPPINESS.
With Condorcet the matrix is a reasonably compact summary of the voting for the public. Also, with multiple polling stations, such as for electing a governor, matrices can be summed for convenience of all concerned.
With IRV there is dependence on the voting pattern in individual ballots.
When it eventually comes to getting these things implemented, my compromise solution is to propose a law that allows the elections official (county clerk, secretary of state, etc.) to chose from a list of approved methods. In exchange for a little "chaos" I think we'll get definitive practical results with none of the results being terribly bad (and there's always recall elections if someone truly suckful does somehow get elected).
Brian Olson http://bolson.org/
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026 Do to no one what you would not want done to you. If you want peace, work for justice.
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
