Larry Diamond pro-IRV article

[William Waugh]

http://billmoyers.com/story/second-important-vote-nov-8/

I don't see a way to comment on the article, but I did Tweet to the author.

https://twitter.com/william_waugh/status/788149513022210048

[Brian Kelly]

This is great news and we should encourage people to get out and vote for it!

Why slam IRV? It is much better than FPTP and it's not like another voting system will replace it on the ballot.

[William Waugh]

We should slam IRV to reduce the chance of other localities following the example of Burlingont, Vermont and getting turned off to voting-system reform in general. We should slam IRV because it costs as much or more to implement than rating systems that provide democratic equality. We should slam it because so much better is so near to hand.

[William Waugh]

We should slam IRV in an attempt to reduce the average level of mental retardation in public thinking.

[Brian Kelly]

The movement to repeal IRV voting in Burlington, Vermont was led by Curt Wright, the Republican who lost the mayoral election.  Seems to me that he realized that voting system reform could break the Republican/Democrat duopoly and quickly moved to get rid of it.  52% of the people followed suit.

Don't you thinking telling people of Maine that IRV is terrible makes it _more_ likely that that scenario will happen again?

[Warren D Smith]

On 10/17/16, Brian Kelly <bkell...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is great news and we should encourage people to get out and vote for
> it!

--It seems likely that, just like in Burlington and other places,
the voters will repeal IRV after they
enact it, leading to a complete waste of time.

> Why slam IRV? It is much better than FPTP and it's
> not like another voting
> system will replace it on the ballot.

--I am not "slamming" IRV. I am slamming lies and untruths.
If the proponents of IRV were actually to employ the truth, then
I think they'd find me on their side. That is, however,
almost vanishingly rare.

In fact, in Maine unlike practically everywhere else in the
USA where IRV referenda held, the referendum
is for IRV vs plain plurality -- unlike practically everyplace
where it was IRV vs two-round plurality + runoff.
That fact makes the IRV choice considerably more appealing
for Maine, that it usually has been.

It is very unfortunate that no "other voting system" is
offerred to Mainers. Here is what happens: IRV proponents,
using lies as their main tool, get IRV vs present system
referendum on a ballot. Sometimes that referendum passes.
Later, after years of disappointing results, a repeal referendum
comes. IRV proponents again make very very very sure
that no third voting system is offered to voters on this
repeal referendum either because it is absolutely essential
to them to never admit than any other voting system
could possibly be better. Then, IRV gets repealed.

Tell me, why is this cycle of events beneficial?

And will IRV get repealed? The answer is yes. In Australia,
the most IRV-using country in world (outweighing
all others combined), 3 independent polls all showed
that even in a forced choice
IRV vs plain plurality to elect their house, Australians
would repeal IRV by large margin. The only reason that has
not happened is no repeal referendum was ever held.
In the UK a couple years
back, in the largest ever referendum on IRV vs plurality
ever held by far (outweighing all others ever, combined)
IRV lost by massive landslide.
In San Francisco, the IRV-using
US city with the most IRV experience,
two polls show their voters in hindsight
regard their "enact IRV" decision as a mistake and
if a referendum were held today, they'd repeal it.

rangevoting.org/WhatVotersWant.html

rangevoting.org/Dean2016Refut.html


--
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
"endorse" as 1st step)

[Jameson Quinn]

I would note that Maine has recently had more experience with pathological plurality results than SF, Australia, and even arguably the average UK district, have had, so I think that the assumption that other place's dislike for IRV will translate to ME returning to plurality might turn out to be overgeneralizing, at least in the short-to-medium term of a decade or two.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Center for Election Science" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to electionscience+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Clay Shentrup]

I don't agree with "slamming" IRV. It's important to fact check though. IRV proponents often make false claims about IRV, and that certainly holds true for advocates of the Maine initiative.

There has always been some fear among certain members of our camp that if IRV gets repealed, it actually HURTS election reform, because then people will be resistant even to simpler better methods like Score Voting and Approval Voting. That may pan out but I think we need more data. This Maine initiative should tell us a lot in the coming years.