On 5/29/2013 12:52 PM, David L Wetzell wrote:
...
Also, the bottom line is that when you're advocating for a change in
which single-winner election rule alternative ought to be used, it's not
right to dump the burden of proof on IRV advocates. The amount of time
spent marketing IRV already is a sunk cost and so the burden of proof
for switching ought to lie on the challengers not the defenders of the
status quo progressive electoral alternative to fptp.
This implies that the time (and money) spent on marketing IRV gives IRV
advocates "dibs" (partial ownership) of the election-reform "arena."
None of us (that I know of) who promote voting-method alternatives
(besides IRV) have attempted to build on what IRV advocates have done.
Certainly my efforts have been independent.
If anything, what I have experienced is IRV advocates attempting to take
over some of my efforts to educate people about voting methods.
More to the point, I've been working on election-method reform much
longer than I've been aware of organizations (especially FairVote) that
promote IRV.
Does that put me at or near the front of an imaginary queue? Of course not.
What we are all attempting to do is to promote fairness.
The election-reform individuals and groups that use unfair tactics are
revealing themselves to have an agenda other than fairness.
In the long run, fairness will win, simply because it produces a higher
level of economic prosperity (which in turn is connected to less
fighting, better health, and greater happiness).
Richard Fobes
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
