plurality leader in the initial tally ended up losing
weak Condorcet compromise in third place
if Burlington had used Condorcet rules ... there would be even more
vociferous calls for repeal
These are all semi-valid concerns in a country that is so used to
plurality winners and single-party governments (winner without lots
of / sufficient amount of of first preference support could be a
"weak" single-party ruler).
I note that also the spoiler effect is a quite well known problem in
the USA and that the 33% plurality winner would have lost also with
the old rules (the probability of electing a Republican might be
bigger with the old rules though). All this together shows that the
discussion and decision making is probably more abut who makes the
best and most convincing claims at correct times than about who makes
the correct and rational claims. There is no one making a rational
summary of all the arguments. The discussion is more likely to hover
around various simple claims (that may well be oversimplified, false,
unclear, intentionally unclear and/or in conflict with each others
just like the already mentioned claims are, no problem).
Many voters may have interest but not sufficient knowledge and time/
interest to draw rational conclusions. Politicians may well drive only
the short term interests of their own party and themselves (instead of
the society as a whole) (big parties usually have even rational
(selfish) reasons). Media may also be mostly interested in short term
juicy stories. And experts too may have mixed interests. I however
note that there is always some tendency to find solutions that are
good in theory and in practice (and tendency to avoid solutions that
have clearly been "proven wrong"). Decision making will go slightly in
that (rational, sensible) direction if all the facts are made known
and especially if clear descriptions and clear justification of them
are available. That means that despite of the demagogic nature of the
discussion also rational argumentation does have a place in the
process. Better to throw the argumentation in although the discussion
and its outcome may not fully follow the intended logic.
Juho
On Jan 7, 2010, at 1:49 AM, Terry Bouricius wrote:
Juho,
Actually, the opposition to IRV in Burlington is predominantly
focused on
the complaint that the plurality leader in the initial tally ended up
losing in the runoff tally. This candidate was actually the Condorcet
LOSER among the top three candidates (though a fringe candidate with
only
35 votes was the technical Condorcet loser). The complaint from those
circulating the IRV repeal petition is that there shouldn't be any
ranked
ballots, and that the plurality winner with 33% of the vote in the
first
round (and the essential Condorcet-loser) should have been declared
elected. There is no momentum toward a Condorcet approach currently. I
haven't heard more than a couple of people in Burlington suggest
that the
actual Condorcet winner should have won, because he was a weak
Condorcet
compromise in third place in the initial tally. I suspect that if
Burlington had used Condorcet rules and the candidate in third place
in
the initial tally had been declared elected, there would be even more
vociferous calls for repeal in favor of plurality or runoffs.
Terry Bouricius
----- Original Message -----
From: "Juho" <[email protected]>
To: "EM Methods" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: [EM] just to let you know ...
In Burlington at least the arguments for Condorcet should be straight
forward. People are already ok with ranked ballot based voting. Many
of them may feel that in the last election the Condorcet winner should
have won. From this point of view Condorcet is just a small
modification that fixes this problem.
Many voters may support going back to the old system since that would
(at least seem to) fix the problem of failing to elect the ("beats
all") Condorcet winner. It would make sense to make them aware that
there are also other ways to solve the problem (= just fix the
tabulation method).
Juho
On Jan 6, 2010, at 7:47 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
Terry and i agree on many things and I am convinced we have a common
goal: fair elections that represent the will of the electorate and
do not penalize voters for voting non-strategically. and we agree
that the first-past-the-pole (with delayed runoff if no one exceeds
40%) is no good, worse than the IRV that was passed in 2005 and used
twice since.
Terry, we *do* disagree about some things. factually, it is *not*
just Republicans. there are many, many Democrats that have joined
that "One Person, One Vote" group and, Terry, if IRV is repealed
this March, it's gonna be because the number of Democrats on that
side have been underestimated and not taken seriously.
I am against the repeal. I hope it loses, but only by a whisker.
If IRV is retained by a great margin, that will reassure IRV
proponents that there is nothing wrong with it and the pathologies
will likely be repeated in future elections. but if it survives by
just a hair, then maybe the IRV proponents will get the message.
and maybe in 2011 we can replace it with Condorcet.
--
r b-j [email protected]
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
-----Original Message-----
From: "Terry Bouricius" [[email protected]]
Date: 01/06/2010 10:24
To: "EM" <[email protected]>, "robert bristow-
johnson" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [EM] just to let you know ...
The key fact to understand about the situation in Burlington, is
that the
proposal for the repeal of IRV would replace it with a plurality
system. A
candidate could win with 40% of the vote. If no candidate reaches 40%
there would be a runoff election.
Robert Bristow-Johnson and I did a little poking around to see if we
could
spark any interest in Condorcet as a better way to go, but the folks
pushing for repeal of IRV are mainly Republicans who believe that a
40%
plurality rule is their best chance of winning the mayor's office,
and
have no interest in principles of majority, let alone Condorcet
winners.
Terry Bouricius
----- Original Message -----
From: "robert bristow-johnson" <[email protected]>
To: "EM" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 11:28 PM
Subject: [EM] just to let you know ...
... that the anti-IRV folks in Burlington Vermont have now officially
submitted more than sufficient number of signatures to put an IRV
repeal question on the Town Meeting ballot this coming March.
Both sparks and a little bit of fecal matter is gonna fly in all
directions now. One of blogs is at http://7d.blogs.com/blurt/
2009/12/
burlington-residents-seek-repeal-of-instant-runoff-voting.html .
Whereas the discussion here is largely academic, in the town of my
residence, it's gonna get real.
Feel free to jump in (hopefully with pertinent facts) even if you're
outa town.
--
r b-j [email protected]
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
