>
> On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, Curtiss Brown wrote:
>
> > http://www.smartvoter.org/1998nov/ca/scl/meas/F/
> >
> >
> Oy Veh! I read the "rebuttals"- first one from some conservative clique,
> then another from someone who thinks that "IRO" will prevent 50%+ of the
> vote from winning, etc. etc. Man- the tories in your town are getting
> desperate!
The opposition in Santa Clara, to the Instant Runoff measure
didn't have any information about IRO or its problems. That
of course is surely the way that CVD wanted it. That's probably
why, when they issued an announcement, forwarded here, that
IRO would be proposed in several cities, they didn't tell which
ones. Furtive. It would seem that CVD doesn't like the public
to have the opportunity to hear both sides.
Instead of attributing the poorness of the "anti" arguments to
the opponents, it might be better to attribute the 1-sided debate
to the proponents' lack of openness about where they're going
to promote their irrational method.
Well ok, maybe they can furtively push IRO through here & there,
locally. But doing so risks CVD's credibility, when IRO screws
up, and when it comes out that they were well-warned of their
method's faults.
Mike Ossipoff
>
>
