I question adding this collection of paragraphs to the major
declaration, which seems more aimed at improving public elections.
On Aug 28, 2011, at 2:22 AM, Richard Fobes wrote:
Here are some additional paragraphs that can be added to our
declaration. I've written them to cover some important concepts that
are currently not explained.
--------------- begin new paragraphs --------------
"Roberts Rules of Order contain rules about voting, so any
organization that has formally adopted these rules, and has not
adopted additional overriding rules about voting, must ensure
compatibility with these rules. Roberts Rules of Order wisely
require that when an officer is elected, the winning candidate must
receive a majority of votes. If none of the candidates receives a
majority on the first round of voting, these rules require
additional rounds of voting until one of the candidates receives a
majority. Very significantly the rules specify that the candidate
with the fewest votes must not be asked to withdraw. This means that
instant-runoff voting is not compatible with Roberts Rules of Order.
Also notice that Roberts Rules of Order oppose the use of plurality
voting."
"In situations that require compatibility with Roberts Rules of
Order, all of us support the use of any of our supported election
methods as a way to identify which candidate or candidates should be
encouraged to withdraw. (Before withdrawing the candidate deserves
to be given an opportunity to express support for a remaining
candidate.) In this case the supported election method is being
used to identify the least popular candidates instead of the most
popular candidate. Therefore all the available counts and calculated
rankings produced by the supported method must be shared. This
information gives the candidates, and their supporters, clear
evidence as to which candidates should withdraw. The final round of
voting typically would involve either two or three candidates, and
the final round must use single-mark ballots, and the winning
candidate must receive a majority of votes."
I question "two or three" - there is no need to dump losers - we care
about winners.
Dave Ketchum
"Almost all of us signing this declaration recommend that an
organization formally adopt a rule that specifies that one of our
supported election methods will be used to elect the organization's
officers. If there is uncertainly about which supported method to
choose, the adopted rule can specify that any of the election
methods supported by this declaration are acceptable for electing
the organization's officers, and that the current organization's
officers can choose which of our supported methods will be used in
the next election."
...
"Here is another way to summarize what we support, and what we
oppose. If voters only indicate a single, first choice on their
ballot, then the candidate with the most first-choice votes is not
necessarily the most popular, and the candidate with the fewest
first-choice votes is not necessarily the least popular."
"A source of confusion for some people is the similarity between
getting the most votes and getting a majority of votes. Although it
is true that getting a majority of votes also means getting the most
votes, it is not true that getting the most votes also implies
getting a majority of votes. Expressed another way, when there are
three or more candidates and the candidate with the most first-
choice votes does not receive a majority of votes, then that means
that a majority of voters oppose this candidate (as their first
choice). To resolve this situation fairly, additional preference
information must be considered."
--------------- end new paragraphs --------------
If anyone is putting together the pieces I've written, please let me
know. Otherwise I'll create a new draft that contains what I've
written, plus some refinements to accommodate the request that the
different Condorcet methods be explained separately (not within the
main list), plus some paragraphs to accommodate the request for
statements about multiple rounds of voting.
Richard Fobes
On 8/23/2011 9:38 PM, Ralph Suter wrote:
...
5. Finally, I think the statement could be greatly improved and made
more interesting, relevant, and compelling to a wider range of
readers
by explaining that alternative voting and representation methods can
also be beneficially used for a large variety of purposes other than
general political elections and that different methods are often more
suitable for some kinds of purposes than for other purposes. Some
example of other purposes are: US-style primary elections; party
convention votes; decisions in legislative bodies and committees;
decisions by informal groups; decisions in meetings of different
kinds
and sizes; uncritical or relatively minor decisions vs. major,
critically important decisions; opinion polling; TV/radio audience
voting; provisional ("straw") voting; and choosing organizational
board
members and conference attendees. ...
> ...
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
