[EM] IRV vs RCV??? responding to the last post,

[Sennet Williams]

This is responding to Kathy's bizarre comments:
1st of all, "RCV" is simply a RENAMING of IRV!  It is exactly the same counting method and ballot type.  I was at the SF elections commission when the term "Ranked Choice Voting" was suggested as a better name for the election system.  It was an OPPONENT OF RANKED VOTING that created the term.  The (winning) voters of San Francisco, Berkeley and Oakland all voted for "Instant Runoff Voting,"  but after it passed the cities and media started referring to IRV as RCV BECAUSE OF FAIRVOTE.   FAIRVOTE's goal is to use widespread support for single-winner IRV as a path towards less popular "Choice Voting", so Fairvote started using the RCV term for that reason.
Your comments claiming that IRV is unfair to ANY voters are unexplainable unless you simply don't know the IRV/RCV vote counting process?  Maybe you could offer some example or something?
 Regarding suing for a right to an IRV ballot,  It's a legal fact. If some voters are allowed to choose  IRV, it is unconstitutional to deny that right to the other voters.  There is nothing to debate.   Using this forum to insult me and confuse anyone who might want to learn the facts has no benefit to anyone. 
IRV/RCV is the ONLY election reform making progress in America, and it is building faster and faster.  Rep. Don Beyer (D) just introduced a bill for national RCV(IRV) in congress, A new 1st.  http://www.democratizeus.com/2017/06/30/congressmans-bill-revolutionize-america-changing-way-elect-representatives/    PR supporters might be thrilled that his bill is basically a type of choice voting (3 member districts), but it will never be passed by the GOP anyway.  But it will get a LOT of publicity for RCV.   
I too used to campaign for PR too, but the reality is these debates about which PR system is better are about as useful as debating who can hold their breath the longest.  Besides being illegal for federal elections, Most of the voters and virtually everyone in power is a Democrat/Republican and they will NEVER switch from simple plurality to PR.   Besides getting donations from 3rd party supporters,  all Fairvote is accomplishing by promoting PR/Choice Voting is confusing  Democrat party leaders afraid of one-winner IRV, which was SERIOUSLY holding back IRV reform for years, but now the ball is seriously in motion for major IRV reforms by 2020.  The 2000 election failure resulted in in the first major victories for IRV reform, and the 2016 failure will put IRV over the top.

[f***@snkmail.com]

Post by Sennet Williams
1st of all, "RCV" is simply a RENAMING of IRV!

No it's not. There are *many* ranked-choice, preferential voting systems,
and misusing the term to refer exclusively to IRV is dishonest and
harmful. Many of the other ranked-choice systems are much better, and
you're intentionally misleading people into thinking that IRV has the same
benefits that they do (or that there's only one type of reform, and the
only options are to get behind it or not).

Post by Sennet Williams
IRV/RCV is the ONLY election reform making progress in America, and it is
building faster and faster.

Hopefully this trend reverses, as more people do their research and realize
that IRV is a sham "reform" that only perpetuates two-party domination.

FairVote could do so much good if they threw their marketing weight behind
a voting system that actually worked. :(

[robert bristow-johnson]

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------

Subject: Re: [EM] IRV vs RCV??? responding to the last post,

From: ***@snkmail.com

Date: Fri, June 30, 2017 8:54 pm

To: election-***@electorama.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Sennet Williams
1st of all, "RCV" is simply a RENAMING of IRV!

No it's not. There are *many* ranked-choice, preferential voting systems,
and misusing the term to refer exclusively to IRV is dishonest and
harmful.

 
and FairVote and Rob Richie do that. i've call him on it.
 

Many of the other ranked-choice systems are much better, and
you're intentionally misleading people into thinking that IRV has the same
benefits that they do (or that there's only one type of reform, and the
only options are to get behind it or not).

and FairVote also does that.

Post by Sennet Williams
IRV/RCV is the ONLY election reform making progress in America, and it is
building faster and faster.

Hopefully this trend reverses, as more people do their research and realize
that IRV is a sham "reform" that only perpetuates two-party domination.
FairVote could do so much good if they threw their marketing weight behind
a voting system that actually worked. :(

because if liberal cities with strong third parties adopt IRV and it screws up like it did in Burlington Vermont 2009, ranked-choice voting and that kind of election reform will, again, suffer in reputation.
FairVote would do so much MORE
good if they did not deliberately conflate IRV with RCV and represent that conflation to various governments and organizations regarding election reform.

--
r b-j                  ***@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

[robert bristow-johnson]

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------

Subject: [EM] IRV vs RCV??? responding to the last post,

From: "Sennet Williams" <***@yahoo.com>

Date: Fri, June 30, 2017 8:19 pm

To: "election-***@lists.electorama.com" <election-***@lists.electorama.com>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
listen, i had my arguments with Kathy Dopp, but what she said was entirely accurate.
(and you don't wanna engage me in this.  ask Rob Richie.)

Post by Sennet Williams
1st of all, "RCV" is simply a RENAMING of IRV!

only by FairVote.  it's like the Discovery Institute appropriating or usurping the term "Intelligent Design", when that term existed centuries before with teleologists.

Post by Sennet Williams
 It is exactly the same counting method and ballot type.  I was at the SF elections commission when the term "Ranked Choice Voting" was suggested as a better name for the election system.  It was an OPPONENT OF RANKED VOTING that created the term.  The (winning)

voters of San Francisco, Berkeley and Oakland all voted for "Instant Runoff Voting,"  but after it passed the cities and media started referring to IRV as RCV BECAUSE OF FAIRVOTE.   FAIRVOTE's goal is to use widespread support for single-winner IRV as a path towards less popular
"Choice Voting", so Fairvote started using the RCV term for that reason.
and it's totally dishonest appropriation of the word.  FairVote does not want to admit the failure of IRV (to deliver on the very promises it makes) in Burlington Vermont when IRV did not elect the
Condorcet Winner.  it was a fucking mess.  Spoiler.  Explicit punishment of voters for choosing their favorite as #1 (that places a burden of tactical voting on voters).  Also, a case for non-monotonicity can be made with that election.
when more voters mark their ballots
that they prefer Candidate A to Candidate B, then why elect Candidate B?  IRV is a crappy way to, most of the time, elect the Condorcet Winner.  If the Condorcet winner is the candidate preferred by voters over every other candidate, why not just elect the Condorcet winner?  why fuck
around with this kabuki dance of transferred votes as does IRV?

Post by Sennet Williams
Your comments claiming that IRV is unfair to ANY voters are unexplainable unless you simply don't know the IRV/RCV vote counting process?

I don't think you understand it.

Post by Sennet Williams
Maybe you could offer some example or something?

Burlington Vermont mayoral race on Town Meeting Day
2009.

Post by Sennet Williams
 Regarding suing for a right to an IRV ballot,  It's a legal fact. If some voters are allowed to choose  IRV, it is unconstitutional to deny that right to the other voters.  There is nothing to debate.   Using this forum to insult me and confuse anyone who might want to

learn the facts has no benefit to anyone. 
Sennet Williams, *you* do not understand what the problem is.

Post by Sennet Williams
IRV/RCV is the ONLY election reform making progress in America, and it is building faster and faster.  Rep. Don Beyer (D) just introduced a bill for national RCV(IRV) in congress, A new 1st.

 http://www.democratizeus.com/2017/06/30/congressmans-bill-revolutionize-america-changing-way-elect-representatives/    PR supporters might be thrilled that his bill is basically a type of choice voting (3 member districts), but it will never be passed by the GOP anyway.
 But it will get a LOT of publicity for RCV.   
stop conflating Ranked-Choice Voting with **one** method of implementing it.  (and a lousy method to implement RCV.  only Borda is worse. Bucklin is probably better than IRV, but it's still not Condorcet.)

Post by Sennet Williams
I too used to campaign for PR too, but the reality is these debates about which PR system is better are about as useful as debating who can hold their breath the longest.  Besides being illegal for federal elections, Most of the voters and virtually everyone in power is a

Democrat/Republican and they will NEVER switch from simple plurality to PR.   Besides getting donations from 3rd party supporters,  all Fairvote is accomplishing by promoting PR/Choice Voting is confusing  Democrat party leaders afraid of one-winner IRV, which was SERIOUSLY holding
back IRV reform for years, but now the ball is seriously in motion for major IRV reforms by 2020.  The 2000 election failure resulted in in the first major victories for IRV reform, and the 2016 failure will put IRV over the top.----
IRV sucks the douchebag.  if you want to reform elections with Ranked Choice Voting,  ***don't*** promote it with IRV.  when it fails again (and it will) that will set back RCV reform for generations.




--
r b-j                  ***@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."