On 11/24/11 2:20 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
Let me start off by saying that I'm thankful for this list-serve of
people passionate about electoral reform
and that you put together a working consensus statement. I'm trying
to work it some more...
My belief is that the US's system makes it necessary to frame
electoral reform simply and to limit the options proffered.
but they should be *good* options. limiting the proffered options to
IRV is proven by our experience in Vermont to eventually fail.
This is what FairVote does and they do it well.
no they don't. FairVote sells ranked-choice voting and the IRV/STV
method of tabulating the ranked ballots as if they are the same thing.
i.e., once they convince voters, city councilors, and legislators that
ranked-choice voting is a good thing (by accurately pointing out what is
wrong with FPTP in a multiparty context and/or viable independent
candidates), they present IRV as it is the only solution. that
backfired BIG TIME here in Burlington Vermont.
If you're going to undercut their marketing strategy then ethically
the burden of proof is on you wrt providing a clear-cut alternative to
IRV3.
Condorcet.
which Condorcet method i am not so particular about, but simplicity is
good. Schulze may be the best from a functional POV (resistance to
strategy) but, while i have a lot of respect for Markus, the Schulze
method appears complicated and will be a hard sell. i also do not think
that cycles will be common in governmental elections and am convinced
that when a cycle rarely occurs, it will never involve more than 3
candidates in the Smith set. given a bunch of Condorcet-compliant
methods that all pick the same winner in the 3-candidate Smith set, the
simplest method should be the one marketed to the public and to legislators.
--
r b-j r...@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
