David Finke "Respectfully writes:
I don't care about the poster's spelling or grammar but I do
take strong issue with his faulty reasoning.
We can argue the risks and benefits of the various versions of
IRV on their merits but casting aspersions upon someone taking an
opposing position constitutes an ad hominem attack. ("party stalwart",
"plurality lover", knowing "which side their breads buttered on").
You attempt to associate those arguing the opposing argument with
multiple terrible things ("bloody" conflicts, polarizers, "self-
interest" and "greed") but don't support the associations with evidence.
You claim, "The present stench and ineffectiveness of government
perceived over the years is likely a direct result of plurality
victories." Where's the beef?!! Why not try to support your claims
with some actual evidence? It leaves one with the impression that
the evidence is not out there. Come on, man, use a search engine!
Anyway, correlation does not imply causation.
Despite this disappointing attempt at persuasion, I must say that
I've seen a number of fascinating and in-depth studies examining the
various forms of IRV and contrasting them with primary election
systems like we have now. My overall impression is that in every
voting system there are winners and losers. There are various
scenarios where second and third-tier candidates can be either
excessively or insufficiently reflected in election outcomes. Some methods
of tallying IRV can be closer to the "truth" under some scenarios,
some can be farther from the "truth" than what we have now.
Personally, I currently think IRV deserves further consideration on the
level of the city party central committees or party state central
committees, especially regarding its application on a trial basis on some
elections like library or school board.
Bill Kahn responds with, um, respect....yeah....respect:
I repectfully disagree; "I don't need no stinking badges."
I don't need any stinking search engines either; much can be learned about
IRV and many alternative voting methods simply by noticing who supports,
opposes, or remains silent on them along with their affiliations.Likewise, I
doubt
that any post here is persuading anyone of any particular view or another. In
my
view, we simply have to try IRV, i.e., fish or cut bait. I can't really
comment on Mr. Finke's assertions that I attacked anyone without breaking the
list
rules--dog gone it, I just won't do that.At least I think I won't.
Frankly, and I don't think this is ad hominen, but I take issue with every
single paragraph Finke has written about my post. If any post in the last few
days has been ad hominen, it is Finke's, but that's not my call.
Bill Kahn
Prospect Park
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[email protected]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
