>From Kathy Dopp's anti-IRV propaganda "report":
" 17. Unstable and can be delicately sensitive to noise in the rankings. If an
election is not
resolved after 3 rounds of IRV then one is deep in the ranking for many people.
This means
noise in the rankings. Do people really study candidates they don't care much
about? Thus
the noise in the ranking for the most ill-informed voters is determining the
outcome in deep
rank run-offs.
When a race is unresolved after 3 rounds of IRV, a better solution is to hold a
real run off
with the remaining candidates. Having winnowed the field, voters can now
properly study
their allowed few choices with the required care and presumably enough will to
make the
outcome not contingent on noise. Moreover, can you fathom how awful it would be
to fill
out a ballot ranking every candidate 10 deep? In Australia, voters are required
by law to fill
rank ever candidate running (generally 20) from 1 to 20. Do you think there is
anything
besides noise in the last ten? The saving grace on the Australian ballot is
that generally there
are only 2 questions, one with 3 to 4 rankings and one with about 20. Not like
our USA
ballots. Restricting the ranking depth of ranked choice ballots could improve
IRV methods
by reducing noise and making it easier for voters. "
No-one I gather is suggesting that in the US voters should be compelled to
fully rank, so all
this is silly crude stuff.
"In Australia, voters are required by law to fill rank ever candidate running
(generally 20) from 1 to 20."
The "generally 20" figure is false. For Australian IRV elections there is
rarely more than about
seven candidates.
The figure 20 is about right for elections to the Senate, which uses
multi-member STV
(corrupted into a quasi-list system).
Elsewhere in the paper we read that IRV is inadequate because it can't
guarantee that the
winner will be elected with the support of a majority of all the voters who
submitted
valid ballots.
"Restricting the ranking depth of ranked choice ballots could improve IRV
methods
by reducing noise and making it easier for voters."
But Kathy favours "restricting ranking depth" which of course has the effect of
making
this avowed aim much less likely.
And of course restricting ranking doesn't "make it easier for voters". If
truncation is allowed,
how could it?
In fact it just makes it harder for some voters. Say there are many candidates
and I judge
that 2 of them are the front-runners, I have a preference between them but they
are my
2 least favourite candidates. I am stuck with the same dilemma and strong
incentive to use
the Compromise strategy that I have in FPP. To have some hope of having an
impact on
the result I must insincerely rank my preferred front-runner above
second-bottom.
Chris Benham
Start at the new Yahoo!7 for a better online experience. www.yahoo7.com.au----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
