Actually I have no objection to thorough discussion of the comparison of the faults of IRV and wv before proposing either one. Discussion should be throrough, no-holds-barred, but should have a reasonable time-limit.
In fact it was I who asked Richie to discuss method-merit with single-winner reform advocates, instead of just pursuing his project in complete disregard for what is preferred by people who take the subject more seriously than Richie and other promoters do. I said, "Let's get our act together before we take it on the road."
But no, Richie began promoting IRV to the publc, with the result that the faults of IRV have been discussed in front of a general public audience, instead of just with IRVists. Sometimes CVD people complain that Condorcetists and Approvalists are working against reform when they oppose IRV proposals. But it was Condorcetists and Approvalists who asked Richie to avoid this situation in which IRV's faults are discussed publicly.
I've never heard of an IRV proposal succeeding where there was any opposition from Condorcetists &/or Approvalists. IRV failed in Alaska, and initially in San Francisco. On both occasions, a few of us heard of the proposal, and sent in our comments. Condorcetists and Approvalists can and will sink IRV anywhere where they have the opportunity and the time to tell the people what IRV is like.
IRV has succeeded in a few places where its genuine opposition either hadn't heard about it or didn't have time to deal with it.
Really, we should have an organization dedicated to finding out about each IRV proposal in the U.S., or anywhere, and taking turns writing to the decisionmakers involved in the choice, or getting our information published in newspaper letters or ballot-pamphlets there, attending forums, etc. We could fairly divide the time and labor of doing that work. I can't do it alone.
Don't feel that we shouldn't do that. It was Richie, not we, who chose the confrontariional nonco-operative mode. If it would make people feel more productive, we could simultaneously advocate Approval, CR, wv, or Cardinal Pairwise in those jurisdictions where we're opposing IRV.
But, James, to return to the original topic, IRV is already being aggressively promoted around the country. Do you seriously suggest that we should discuss at great length how "badly" wv can fail (in ways that I consider relatively irrelevant because they aren't strategy problems)? I suggest that when IRV is being gung-ho promoted by people who don't care about its problems, this is no time to waste our time debating wv endlessly before offering it as an alternative to IRV. Yes, as I said, I consider CR to be a better public proposal, but some suggest that a multi-pronged approach is good too. I've heard from a lot of people who like wv, including a state lawmaker who has proposed IRV in his legislature, and was interested in proposing wv there.
So, James, since it's the IRVists, not we, who are aggressively proposing something that they don't understand the problems of, maybe it would make a lot more sense for you to be discussing the need to talk about IRV's problems instead.
Mike Ossipoff
_________________________________________________________________
Don�t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
