But, this isn't about hating the competitive scene. It's about hating the fact that people use IV's to gain a competitive edge, and many people being butthurt that they're at a disadvantage because they can't be bothered to do the same as their opponents.
Well it can be like that again if they get rid of IVs.
How can you say that knowing that IV's have always existed? Your comment doesn't even make any sense. The only thing that will be solved by getting rid of IV's is homogonizing the game, and allowing literally EVERYONE into the competitive scene. Trust me, you won't like that at all.
I pretty much agree with this. As much tedium as IVs and EVs have, I don't even want to try to imagine Pokemon without at least EVs. The strategy in the game is simple (the standard rock/paper/scissors affair of moves in a turn based battle system of [typically] 1v1) to the point that, without EVs and IVs, the competetive scene would literally boil down to "Oh, my opponent has that team. Well, since my team is weak to that team, and there was no way to train my specific pokes to be different using variable stats [EV training], and since there's no other randomized stats, I can pretty much guarantee I'm going to lose."
You could argue that movepools give you the same amount of variation as EVs, but without EVs in the game they actually don't. With EVs, certain pokemon can function better as tanky or as sweepers (Gyarados), and the moveset you choose literally depends on the EV's you train. That means if every pokemon had set stats that didn't change from one to the next, then there would always be one or two ideal movesets that would see use and no others.
Main point; this isn't a Magic: The Gathering trading card game where every monster of the same name can be exactly the same. In a pokemon battle, you don't have a 60 card deck to build and draw from, you have six pokemon using one item each. EV's are what maintain a level of competitiveness in a game that is extremely simple otherwise.