so Jan, i heard that you were for "keeping plurality voting over IRV in
Fort Collins". is that true? do you continue to feel the same way
about FPTP vs. IRV?
On 12/3/11 3:37 PM, Jan Kok wrote:
The US President's power is huge. He can veto bills passed by
Congress, and he can start wars. And now, de facto, can even order
assassinations of US citizens.
this is more of an issue of (constitutionally) how much power a
president or other nation's head-of-state should have. whether a
single-seat office holder has a lot (or too much) power or not, doesn't
change the notion of how that person should be elected in a democracy
and, particularly, a democracy that makes room for more than two viable
parties and for independent candidates.
So, it's important that we have good single-winner election methods to
make the best possible choices of winners for single-winner offices.
it is regardless of how much power that single winner gets. even for
the official Town Clown, why award the office to the loser? or the
2nd-place winner?
IRV/RCV is a poor method. It can make poor choices of winners, such as
in the 2009 Burlington, VT mayor's race, and is more complicated than
other methods.
it *has* made poor choices. doesn't mean that it always had. IRV
doesn't do too bad when it elects the CW (and all the CW needs to attain
is a place in the final round, then the CW is also the IRVW). but the
same argument can be used for the Electoral College vs. the popular
vote. it doesn't make much sense to keep the E.C. because most of the
time it elects the winner of the popular vote which is deemed the
measure of how well it works. if that's the case, why not ditch the
E.C. and just elect the popular vote winner? same for IRV vs. Condorcet.
The complexity makes it difficult to sell to voters,
some of whom are _extremely_ resistant to change.
yeah, but tax laws are complex too. and we continue to pay taxes with
complexity in the code (and some are _extremely_ resistant to that
also). some people tell me that Condorcet is more complicated than
IRV. i disagree but in any case reject the notion of adopting "simple"
laws that are unfair eschewing those that have more subtlety but are
naturally fairer.
The complexity also
makes it more expensive to count the votes,
not really. the scan/count machines can do fine with the ranked ballot,
whether it's IRV or not.
IRV is harder to hand count. but Condorcet would be even more laborious
to hand count, i think.
and makes IRV elections more vulnerable to fraud.
all elections are vulnerable to fraud if there is corruption in official
places and the rule-of-law is diminished. the only manner that IRV is
*more* vulnerable w.r.t. other methods is that it is not precinct
summable. it's harder to fix an election that covers many voting places
if the results from the individual polling places cannot be tabulated
and reported independently from each place. now you can still do that
with IRV (the media gets a copy of the same thumb drive that the
precinct clerk takes to the central counting place), but the auditors in
the media might not be able to easily check the overall results unless
the method is precinct summable.
And when IRV gets rejected or repealed, as
it has in several places, it poisons the well, making it harder to
introduce other, better voting methods.
and that, i fully agree with.
So, as long as there are people pushing IRV, let the quibbling (about
single-winner methods) continue!
i agree with that, too.
--
r b-j r...@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
