As I understand it, the Santa Clara initiative was a CVD operation, and both CVD members that I've discussed candidate- withdrawal with (one of them was the "Executive Director") rejected candidate-withdrawal. I agree that IRO would be ok if it allowed candidate-withdrawal. But the IRO advocates, including CVD, seem to be determined to impose IRO's problem on the electorate, since they've refused both of the mitigations that have been proposed to them: Candidate withdrawal, and IRO with the option to vote more than 1 candidate in 1st place (or, more generally, at any rank position). That "Approval IRO compromise would have the rule: "Repeatedly eliminate froml the rankings the candidate occupying or sharing highest position in fewest rankings". I emphasize that IRO (or any method) with candidate withdrawal would be better than Approval IRO. My point is that IRO advocates refuse any kind of mitigation of their method's problem. Mike
