I don't care. There's a reason we start counting at 1st edition. OD&D is more like a prototype or proof-of-concept model than a working, viable edition. It's so bare-bones minimalist that it's barely even playable.
Who is this "we" you speak of?
The reason for the naming isn't because
we don't count OD&D (or, for that matter, don't think about the B/X branch), it's a more simply reason.
There was OD&D (which was just called "Dungeons & Dragons," of course).
Then there was Holmes
Basic in 1977, which was a codification of OD&D. Holmes Basic specifically referred to the upcoming Gygax expanded rules in, wait for it,
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Get it? There was the Basic (beginner) and then Advanced ("the reader is referred to the more complete rules in ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS" Holmes 6).
From there, we had a later splintering of editions (blah blah blah Gygax Arneson TSR lawsuit).
Two games:
Dungeons & Dragons (B/X, BECMI, RC).
Advanced Dungeons & Dragons.
Therefore, when Zeb Cook was tasked with cleaning up the rules and the verbiage of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons, it was released as the second edition ... not of D&D, but of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons.
As stated at the beginning of the foreword of the 2e PHB: "It has been a long time getting here. I don't mean the months, perhaps even years, you may have waited for a revised, expanded, and improved
2nd Edition of the AD&D game."
Since that time, because of the way Second Edition was named, we've just kept with the same nomenclature. But whether you want to view OD&D - 1e as a single, evolving edition, or as separate editions, there is no "we" that doesn't could OD&D because it's not a working, viable edition. That's ... crazy talk. Especially given that people
still play this game that you claim is not viable.