At 01:44 PM 5/29/2013, David L Wetzell wrote:
I believe the diff IRV makes makes it worth it. Given the current
habits of the US, I don't see "advanced-systems" havinge sufficient
additional value-added to justify switching from the extensive
marketing campaign already in place for IRV. If things evolve, it
will be easier to switch from IRV, in part because of widespread
habituation to IRV and how it'll make it harder for those who
benefit from the status quo to divide and conquer advocates of reform.
This has been, of course, the FairVote argument for a long time.
FairVote, however, did not merely market IRV. They also deprecated
other systems, such that the President of FairVote Arizona, putting
on her Arizona League of Women Voters President hat, lobbied against
the recent Approval initiative based on old FairVote arguments that
actually did not apply to the circumstances where Approval has been
proposed, old and discredited arguments, which she did not
understand, promoted by FairVote. That's the problem with a divisive
marketing campaign!
And it can backfire.
IRV was known as a seriously defective single-winner voting system,
since it was proposed as the Ware system. It's a "make the world safe
for major parties" system. It breaks down badly when a third party
starts to attain parity, or passes parity, as in Burlington.
The FairVote campaign oversold IRV, and there is a backlash,
implementations are being rescinded. Previously, IRV was dumped for
(unfair) political reasons, as in Ann Arbor, MI. Much rescinding of
late has not been unfair like that. It's been based on substantial
method failure.
Because FairVote focused only on IRV for single-winner elections, it
was not prepared for this. It recommended IRV blindly, regardless of
context. In Burlingon, it's obvious, instead of going back to a
plurality-satisfied (40% ) runoff voting, a hybrid could have been
proposed: Bucklin, using the same 3-rank ballot, can handle a
three-party situation with ease, tending to find a majority, and if
no majority were found, it's then possible to design an optimal
runoff. FairVote should be *ready* with alternatives, and ready to
recommend them, not just to slink away.
In Arizona, it's quite possible that IRV could be ruled
unconstitutional, because of the "most legal votes" standard of the
Arizona constitution. IRV discards and does not consider some legal
votes. Some it counts, some it does not, treating ballots
differently. It's a problem. Because court decisions with regard to
voting systems do not always consider all the issues, I can't predict
how the Arizona Supreme Court would rule.
If my argument here is legally supported, what, then, should FairVote
Arizona recommend, short of amending the constitution? Is Arizona hopeless?
Hint: Bucklin counts all the votes, and uses them. (There could be an
issue with unused ranks, but my sense is that this would pass muster,
because all ballots are treated equally, and all ranks are either
counted or not.)
Bucklin is "American preferential voting." Yet FairVote used invented
arguments to discredit Bucklin, not election science. FairVote
supported the decision in Brown v. Smallwood, when that decision
would just as easily have dumped IRV, the arguments would be quite
similar. The decision was idiosyncratic, not supported anywhere else,
and not supported by the current Minnesota court. The point is that
FairVote distorted the information available to the public, pursuing
a narrow campaign for a particular method.
The case can be made that FairVote has done significant damage to
election reform in the U.S., by attacking runoff voting, widely
recognized as more democratic than raw plurality. Instead of
*improving* runoff voting, IRV gutted it as an expensive nuisance.
Replacing it with an expensive single-ballot system missing most of
the advantages of actual runoff voting.
I'm hoping that FairVote will begin to cooperate with the Center for
Election Science. We have certain common goals, most notably
proportional representation. The question of optimal voting system is
often dependent on the specific circumstances of a jurisdiction, and
that, as well, can be studied. Yes, political practicality is a
crucial issue for an advocacy group, but if what is advocated is
*actually harmful*, what then? We need clear-thinking activists *and*
we need election science.
How about it, David?
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
