Hear, Hear! I am a Condorcetian, and, although I'd rather jump straight to it, getting people to at least realize there is a better way, and clueing them in that the current method (winner-take-all) is about as flawed as any reasonable system can be, is a step in the best direction.
-----Original Message----- From: Rob Lanphier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 2:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [EM] IRV wins big in SF and Vermont On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Douglas Greene wrote: > So, in the real world, the IRVies are kicking our asses, while we debate > how many voting systems can dance on the end of a ballot. Yup. I don't see this as an altogether bad thing, though. It is if you are an Approval supporter, but not if you are a Condorcet supporter. Douglas, my understanding from looking at your other messages on this list is that you may prefer Approval to Condorcet. If so, this message isn't really directed to you, but to the Condorcet supporters on this list. As a mental exercise, IRV may be a necessary stepping stone to methods like Condorcet (it certainly was for me; I was a proponent of IRV for a few months in 1995). Also, IRV elections are a great way of teaching the electorate how to vote using ranked ballots, and getting governments to switch equipment. I'm concerned about the number of Condorcet advocates who have so heartily embraced Approval over IRV because it's a "better compromise". I'll outline this in another mail (so wait for that mail before starting the flames), but suffice it to say that being up-in-arms (e.g. talking about constitutional challenges) is poor strategy for Condorcet advocates. In general, the CV&D is doing a great job of presenting the problem. The solution is flawed, but they are doing an outstanding job of raising awareness of the problem. Their solution isn't even that far off the mark: they present electoral reform as the solution. You can even find references to Condorcet and Approval on their website (http://www.fairvote.org/pr/q_and_a.htm) Referring to IRV supporters vindictively as "IRVies" and characterizing all of them as simpletons incapable of change is *stupid* strategy. Let me repeat this: REFERRING TO IRV SUPPORTERS VINDICTIVELY AS "IRVIES" AND CHARACTERIZING ALL OF THEM AS SIMPLETONS INCAPABLE OF CHANGE IS *STUPID* STRATEGY. There are certainly IRV supporters who are simpletons incapable of change. Some may even subscribe to this list. However, not *all* IRV supporters are like that, and we must remember this. As I said before, I was an "IRVie" at one point, and now I'm a pretty rabid "Condorcetie". When you insult IRVies as a class of people, even I feel pretty insulted. It's very damaging to whatever message you are trying to make. The CV&D's biggest advantage is that they have won the hearts and minds of people who are actually willing to get off of their butts, go out on the street, and get people to sign a petition. They've got the further advantage that they've got the momentum of past success. We need to acknowledge that, and learn from them. If one really has to consider CV&D the enemy, then consider using an "embrace and extend" strategy, to borrow a page from the Microsoft playbook. Leverage the resources of the CV&D to bring awareness of Condorcet and other alternatives to first-past-the post. You can even do what I did, and volunteer to help out with things like website design. How else do you think I got a link to my Condorcet advocacy site in the CV&D literature? Truth is, they know that link is there; most of them don't consider us "the enemy", just a slightly misguided extreme of their movement. The good news is we're not getting our asses kicked as badly as you might think. In general, when Condorcet is presented to mathematically savvy people, it does quite well. That's why the examples of Condorcet in the wild are much more heavily skewed to the brainy types (the Debian Linux elections, the UK newsgroup hierarchy, and rec.puzzles.crosswords, for example). We need to play on that strength, and make sure that we continue to push hard for the use of Condorcet in brainiac associations. Rob ---- Rob Lanphier [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.eskimo.com/~robla ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. This communication is for information purposes only and should not be regarded as an offer to sell or as a solicitation of an offer to buy any financial product, an official confirmation of any transaction, or as an official statement of Lehman Brothers. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. Therefore, we do not represent that this information is complete or accurate and it should not be relied upon as such. All information is subject to change without notice.
