That's true: I prefer to offer a better reform instead of just shooting down a nonreform. When I wrote my first letter to the SF Chronicle, I ended it by saying that there's a genuine reform that avoids all the problems that I named in the letter. I fear that that letter didn't get printed because the editor may have thought that I was just using the IRV issue to write about something else, or maybe because he felt that my letter should have been limited to one topic: Yes or No on prop A. Of course the existence of much better voting systems is quite relevant to Yes/No on A, but the editor might not have seen it that way.
In all my letters to Richie & others at CVD, and in all my other letters & e-letters critical of IRV, I've always emphasized better voting system proposals. But I don't know if editors will print letters that talk of other reforms, or if the mention of other reforms would be allowed in the ballot pamphlet. Or if the Alaskan IRV opponents would want to talk about other reforms in their anti-IRV arguments in the pamphlet. Some IRV opponents of course oppose IRV because they oppose reform, and have mistakenly been convinced that IRV is a good enough reform to deserve their opposition. (Does anyone know when the deadline is for the proponents & opponents of state propositions to submit their arguments to the ballot-pamphlet for the IRV initiative vote in Alaska?) I believe what happened in Alaska was that a Libertarian spoiled and caused the defeat of a Republican, causing the Democrat to win. So the Republicans want reform, and the Democrats oppose the inititiative. I suspect that the lesser-of-2-evils problem worked well for the Democrats in that spoiler election, and so they don't feel any strategic incentive to try to get rid of Plurality. So yes, I prefer always emphasizing what's better, when writing about what isn't significantly better. But I don't know if it could get into the forums available for the campaign. I'd rather talk about Approval or Condorcet without mentioning IRV's problems than talk about IRV's problems without mentioning Approval or Condorcet. But I feel that when IRV is adopted, that's bad news for single-winner reform, and that we should write what will be printed for defeating IRV in Alaska. But if others will take part in opposing IRV in Alasks (or anywhere else too), I'd be glad to agree to not down IRV without offering Approval, unless the others agree that the Approval material can't get printed or broadcast and that it's desirable to send the anti-IRV material anyway. Of course we can't completely avoid negative campaigning--IRV's problems and lack of improvement have everything to do with why people should refuse it and get something better. Mike _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
