On 6/11/06, warren_d_smith31 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Another important piece of info we need Jan to provide: > > What reasons do they have (both stated and unstated) > for wanting IRV and for believing the current plur+delayed runoff system is > inadequate? > > Why do they believe IRV is the cat's meow for them?
Unstated reasons? You think I'm a mindreader? :-) The first part of http://www.denvergov.org/admin/news/newsforms/IRV_overview.pdf states some reasons. Note the input from Larimer County League of Women Voters. You (Warren) and I corresponded with a member of that group last December. Remember she said the LWV was very conservative and couldn't endorse something new and untried like RV? There was a guy at the May 31 meeting who, in response to my pitch, said "We can't go to the council with several proposals." I don't agree with that... If I was a council member, I think I would like to hear about proposals like this as early as possible, even if they are in a state of flux, so I could provide my inputs, air any concerns, give people as much time to adjust their proposals to address my concerns, etc. I don't think the irv-l group necessarily thinks IRV is the "cat's meow". It's just that the momentum of the group is taking it in the direction of IRV. It will take a consistent push in another direction to get them to change direction. Can we voting method "experts" decide among ourselves which direction we want them to go in? :-) I admit I did unleash a lot of chaos by throwing out so many ideas all at once. By the way, Rob Richie has written some cogent replies on the irv-l list. Worth reading, and seeing if we can address _his_ concerns about Approval Voting, for example. Cheers, - Jan ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info