> I would be surprised if they actually allow much of a forum for > dissenting opinion, but I could be wrong. I wonder how many IRV critics > it would take to make a difference there?
If it's like most such organizations, it would be more trouble to shift the balance than to set up a new organization. With the Internet, the appearance need not have much relation to reality. An organization might be nothing more than a web site, someone's home computer, and a few voluteers, but if there are plenty of press releases and op-eds, it could appear to have the stature of the United Nations. > Alexander Small wrote: > > > > I've only been interested in alternative election methods for a short time, > > but it seems from my limited exposure that the largest organization devoted > > to such reforms is the Center for Voting and Democracy. Unfortunately, > > they advocate instant runoff, and I've concluded (as have most here, I > > think) that IRV is rather undesirable compared with Approval and Condorcet. > > > > Do people think it's worthwhile to nonetheless pay the $15 to become a > > member of CVD and try to persuade them to change? This is akin to when the > > NAACP director bought stock in the TV networks so he could go to > > shareholder meetings and lobby for more diverse casts on prime time shows. > > Or, do people think that joining is simply pledging support to a flawed > > election method, with little hope for changing their position? > > > > Alex Small >
