I wrote yesterday to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (advocates of an IRV initiative in Washington State). Gotta give them credit, I got a reply on the same day. Here it is:
On 2 Mar 2005 at 16:33 PST, Paul McClintock wrote: >>http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2005-January/014389.html > > Interesting. Thanks. > >>why is there no debate on the means to attain the end? > > There is a time and place for debate, and a time and place for action. > IRVWA has had some debate and discussion on the various alternatives, and > had decided to focus attention on the IRV method. Runoff elections are > something most voters and politicians already have an understanding of, and > IRV seems to us to be easier to explain to them. We know it is not perfect, > but there remains much more research to determine the best of the imperfect > alternatives in practice. IRV would get ranked (preferential) voting > started, and the non-strategic voter would not have to change practices if > IRV were replaced later with Condorcet (unless you go to allowing multiple > choices with equal rank). > > Politically around the world and USA, IRV (sometimes by other names, e.g., > RCV in San Francisco) is gradually gaining success, but much more rarely are > other systems (e.g., Condorcet, Borda, approval), in a civil government > setting. So IRV is a strategic decision by IRVWA. Once IRV has been in use > governmentally for a few years or more, and an election arises which > suggests it didn't produce the best results (objectively), then a case can > be made to legislators for an alternative. Hopefully by then additional > research into voting behavior will suggest more conclusively which voting > system is "best." > > See my recent summary of voting methods if interested: > http://www.paulmcclintock.com/edu/preferential-voting.htm > > -- Paul McClintock > IRVWA Secretary > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ted Stern > Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 1:13 PM > To: info <at> irvwa <dot> org > Subject: end does not justify the means > > > I agree with all the reasons IRVWA uses to argue that the primary/general > election method in Washington State must be changed. > > However, I don't agree with the means IRVWA is choosing to attain that goal. > > See the following article: > > http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2005-January/014389.html > > If IRV advocates truly welcome election reform, why is there no debate on > the means to attain the end? > > Sincerely, "We've done the research for you. We know it's not perfect. Let's try this first. We can change later if we need to." So it's a foot in the door. But for what? The IRVWA proposal is a 3 choice preference ballot, no equal ranking. Incidentally, the IRV initiative failed to get onto the 2004 election ballot. Ted -- Send real replies to ted stern at u dot washington dot edu Frango ut patefaciam -- I break so that I may reveal ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info