Reply #25: That's your assessment, not mine...

[cascadiance]

There maybe some vested interests that want to promote it to reward themselves as trying to be a part of the processes. As I noted before that happens every place.

But the concepts of IRV ARE valuable to consider. Those who understand it, who don't have any ties with these companies, like myself see the value of it as citizens.

You claim it "doesn't work", "harms election integrity", "raises costs", and "confuses people".

The only one that I can agree with you here that I feel a case can be made is that it is confusing. But that is an educational process that can be rectified if people become informed about it, just like single payer health care is something that few people really understand and some vested interests are also intentionally trying to complicate it to suit their interests, but that doesn't mean it isn't something worth pursuing to fix a broken health care system we have now.

I think having decentralized local responsibility for elections does FAR MORE to raise costs than doing things differently like with IRV. Now if every locality had different IRV systems, and had to educate people with different rules, you might have a point, but I think more people are seeing that election systems need some degree of standardization and consistency across locales, whether IRV or the status quo means of voting are used. It isn't because it is IRV that makes it costly.

If it "doesn't work", I would submit that its because those implementing it aren't doing their job properly. And that also depends on what you expect the outcome to be. I expect the outcome to be greater accountability of politicians running to the people who vote for them, whether they be from major parties or from third parties. I still see no constructive argument that it in principal doesn't do that. The only argument would be if the implementations are flawed in their development.

Same with "election integrity". It is not because it is IRV, but it is because it is designed poorly. This happens with evoting machines now, that are far more harmful to election integrity than a well-designed paper-ballot IRV system would be. I see no detailed argument that makes that case for me that it is inherently more flawed as a system for this than the present status quo is.