> The trouble with IRV is that it allows the person > with the most votes to lose.
This is equivalent to saying that if a person gets the most votes during the primary but loses the general election, the current system is flawed. I'll illustrate below. > In my opinion, it is manifestly undemocratic to > allow a candidate with the most "first choice" votes > to have an election stolen from him/her because > someone else was a popular second choice. This (which is similar to the thought that IRV violates one-person, one vote) seems to be a common misunderstanding of how Instant Runoff Voting works. Instant Runoff Voting is simply a method of having a series of runoff elections with one ballot. In the best form (as many rankings as candidates), each runoff election eliminates the one candidate with the least amount of votes. As an example, imagine 4 candidates running for an office. Instead of our current system or IRV, we are going to have a series of three elections, each occurring the moment the results from the previous election are done. After each election, the candidate getting the least amount of votes will win: Candidate Orange Candidate Pink Candidate Purple Candidate Teal During the first election: Candidate Orange gets 15% of the vote Candidate Pink gets 20% of the vote Candidate Purple gets 40% of the vote Candidate Teal gets 25% of the vote Since they got the least votes in the primary election, Candidate Orange is eliminated and new ballots are created with Candidates Pink, Purple, and Teal. Since no significant time has gone by, everyone who voted for Pink, Purple, and Teal the first time around are going to vote for them again. The only votes that will change are because those who voted for Orange who will have to choose someone new. It turns out that Orange had a pretty similar agenda to Teal, so after the second round, we end up with: Candidate Pink gets 23% of the vote Candidate Purple gets 42% of the vote Candidate Teal gets 35% of the vote Since Candidate Pink got the least votes in the secondary election, they are eliminated and new ballots are created with Candidates Purple and Teal. Again, people who chose them during the second election will choose them again. People who voted for Pink during the second election will be left to choose between the remaining candidates. Purple will most likely win, but if more than 65% of the "swing vote" (those who had voted for Pink) choose Teal, Teal will win the election. The fact that Purple got the most in the first primary doesn't necessarily mean that Purple has the broadest support. There is a good chance they do, and if they do, they'll win, but it isn't until the final election that the final decision is made. The question of majority vs. plurality is that majority represents a broader support. Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) functions in the exact same way, except rather than having a series of runoff elections, they are all held at the same time by means of a ranked ballot. Basically the voter says "If my candidate gets eliminated in an early election, here are my choices for the subsequent elections." > I believe - strongly - that the act of voting > requires making a decision. Some of my friends tell > me that they really want to vote for this person but > are afraid if they vote for that person then someone > who they really don't like could be elected so they > are forced to vote for someone they don't like as > much to keep from electing somewhat they like > less! They like IRV because then they could in > effect "vote" for two or three people rather than > have to make a choice! Frankly, I see nothing > wrong or improper with that dilemma. In the end, > cast your vote and walk away knowing that you made > your choice. I - strongly - feel differently. I feel that our current system is more akin to gambling than decision making. Rather than simply voting for the candidate whose platform I like the best, I am asked to make an evaluation of what chances I think each of the candidates have. I then weight those chances with a factor that represents how much I like each candidate and vote for whoever ends up with the best combination. Having to guess at the "chances" each candidate has is gambling. The ballot box is the last place I wish to do that. More on that here: http://www.xanga.com/item.aspx?user=rphaedrus&uid=116520850 You do make a decision - which candidate gets your first rank. Which candidate do you support the most? Then you make a second decision - if that candidate gets eliminated in the primary, who are you going to support in the next round of voting? And so on. > What is particularly maddening is trying to figure > out what is taking place in Minneapolis elections > that IRV needs to fix? City council, mayor, school > board, park & recreation board, library board, board > of estimate & taxation are all officially > non-partisan (although the political parties do > endorse candidates for those seats) and IRV is not > going to change that. Well, to be honest, I don't feel that we need it on a local level as much as we need it on a state level. However, I feel that the best place to make changes starts at home which is here. We can show that it works and show that Minneapolis would like to see it in Minnesota as well. However, there are a number of advantages that I would look forward to seeing if we were to start having them locally: 1) Eliminate the ballot box gambling factor. 2) Improve campaign discourse : It has been observed that in places adopting forms of voting like IRV, campaigns are much issue and agenda focused. Attack based campaigning becomes significantly reduced. This is because the candidates do far better to convince the voters that their ideas and viewpoints have the most merit rather than throwing mud on their opponents (thereby alienating those voters who might vote for them in later rounds should their candidate be eliminated). 3) Eliminate the "spoiler" effect and the split vote effect - two similar candidates splitting their voting block allowing someone with a significantly smaller voting block to win. For example, who do you think our mayor would be if our last ballot had read: ************************* Choose One: [ ] RT Rybak [ ] RT Rybak [ ] Sharon Sayles Belton [ ] RT Rybak [ ] RT Rybak ************************* 4) Reduce campaign cycle and election costs. Using IRV means that we would not need to have a local primary. There are a number of ways this saves time, money, and energy. However, it should also be noted that experience suggests that voter turnout will increase which may eat up the financial savings and cause more people to take time off of work on November 2nd. > IRV is a scheme that trashes the notion of one vote > per person and replaces it with complex and > undemocratic process that can defeat the preferred > choice of voters. As far as complexity, voters in other cities and other countries can figure out how to do it - for example, the Republic of Ireland uses a similar system. Granted, their support of music and the arts obviously makes them grow up smarter than average, but I'd hope we can keep up. Hopefully, I have successfully illustrated that IRV does not trash the notion of one vote per person and is not undemocratic - in fact, it increases one's democratic input. If you still feel differently, please elaborate as to which points trouble you. If you have further questions, be sure to also check out: http://www.fairvote.org/irv/index.html - Jason Goray Sheridan, NE __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
