On May 9, 2010, at 12:27 AM, Kathy Dopp wrote:
From: "Terry Bouricius" <[email protected]>
To: "Jameson Quinn" <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]>
..
STV-PR is my primary interest, I believe IRV is an improvement over
the status quo and a plausible path to PR. I
In truth, IRV and STV are an enormous step *down* from existing
plurality voting,
...
IRV/STV also finds majority winners far *less* often than does any
primary/general or top-two runoff plurality election system, unless
you apply your deceptive creative new definition of "majority" as not
a majority of all voters who cast ballots, but of all voters whose
ballots are not eliminated from consideration by the final counting
round (some of them after *not* having had all their choices counted
whenever a subsequent choice was eliminated prior to a higher choice.
so how does delayed TTR solve that problem?
Yes, truly the "later-no-harm" feature of IRV/STV is one of its flaws,
eliminating the possibility of finding compromise candidates that a
majority of voters favors more than the elected candidates who can be
opposed by a majority of voters, as happened, I believe, in
Burlington, VT where you live.
so now, *specifically* (regarding Burlington 2009) how would have TTR
solved that? whether it was IRV or TTR, it's the same two candidates
in the runoff. they *both* fail, Kathy. but the "old" law that has
now returned as our new law would totally obscure that fact. so is
TRR better than IRV because ignorance is bliss? at least with IRV
(because it had the ranked ballot which became accessable for public
examination and counting) we were able to find out that it failed to
elect the "majority" candidate (by "majority candidate" i mean the
only candidate that unambiguously holds a majority preference from
voters compared to any other candidate, this would be the CW, by
definition). the method that you celebrate our return to will now
hide that information. good show!
3. IRV has an analog (two-round runoff) already used in America,
with which voters are familiar and comfortable (that is elimination
of bottom candidates is deemed appropriate by most voters).
As we all know, top-two runoff is not remotely as bad as IRV/STV
bullshit. same two candidates in the runoff. if the same voters
returned for the 2nd round runoff (fat chance), the same candidate
would have been elected. if, because of greatly reduced turnout, the
other guy was elected, that would have been an even GREATER thwarted
majority than the guy that IRV elected. nonetheless, there is no way
that TTR would have elected the unambiguous majority winner and the
"traditional" ballots would not have collected enough information that
we would have even been aware of the fact.
ignorance may be blissful for you, but not for the rest of us.
are
re. all the vagaries. Top-two runoff virtually always does find
majority winners, preserves the voters' right to participate in the
final election decision, preserves the right to have a positive effect
on a candidate's chances of winning, preserves local countability and
auditability, etc.
There is NO comparison between the two methods, except the
disingenuous one told by Fairytale Vote.
the same two candidates would have ended up in the runoff whether it
was delayed TTR or IRV. the delayed TTR would have run the risk of
electing a candidate with even lower support from the electorate due
to reduced turnout. that's how we compare the two methods and i am
not from Fairytale Vote and i doubt that Rob Ritchie would guess that
i am very sympathetic with them.
Of course, IRV and STV can also be repealed (and have been in some
jurisdictions).
Apparently it's been tried and repealed a lot historically in the US,
including in NYC. Too bad memory is so short that people keep trying
it, just like war I guess.
However, it is important to understand why. Some people have
suggested that IRV's failure to elect the Condorcet candidate
caused its repeal in Burlington. That is not correct.
That's *your* analysis. In truth both Dems and Repubs opposed it
because they were in the largest majority of voters when taken
together,
yeah, but the Dems have less in common with the Repubs than they have
with the Progs. that's what the numbers say. that's why, in the
final IRV round the vast majority of Montroll votes got transferred to
Kiss than those that were transferred to Wright.
who would have both gotten a far better result
NO THEY WOULDN'T! That is Your Lie. the interests of the Democrats
would not have been better served with the method that preceded IRV in
Burlington (and that we are returning to). the illegitimate interests
of some Republicans could have been served better by the old system,
but only if a greatly reduced turnout in the runoff would have allowed
their 3rd-place candidate to win. but the interests of the majority
of voters *were* poorly served by IRV in comparison to Condorcet and
we only know that because a ranked ballot was used. we could not have
even figured that out if the old "traditional" ballot was used.
if they'd not
been fooled by Fairytale Vote (and your own efforts) into thinking
that IRV/STV finds majority winners and eliminates spoiler candidates.
...
The Republican acted as the spoiler knocking out the Democrat,
causing the Progressive to win.
that's true, and returning to the old method does nothing to fix that
problem. it only covers it up. other than the bliss of ignorance,
what would you suggest to fix that problem?
--
r b-j [email protected]
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
