From: "James Green-Armytage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [EM] IRV vs. Plurality
Dear voting methods fans,
I am interested in knowing how everyone here feels about this question:
Which is better, IRV or Plurality?
...
The reason I think that this question is important is because it has
immediate relevance for the election methods movement, if there is to be
one. That is, do the IRV people, Approval people, and Condorcet people
necessarily have to be blood enemies, or can they find a common ground in
their critique of plurality?
Personally, I am hoping that we can find a common ground, because I fail
to see how the movement could make much progress if it is so sharply
divided against itself this early in the game.
(JBH) I propose a slogan: DOWN WITH THE TW0-PARTY SYSTEM!!!
PART ONE: TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF IRV VS. PLURALITY, LEAVING OTHER METHODS ASIDE
(JBH) I think Merrill did as thorough a job as we need, in his book MAKING MULTICANDIDATE ELECTIONS MORE DEMOCRATIC. IRV beats Plurality on a long list of measures.
I think these debates over the best method for choosing a single winner are OK as long as we are all united in saying SINGLE-WINNER RACES ARE TO BE AVOIDED WHENEVER POSSIBLE; USE MULTI-SEAT DISTRICTS AND PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION!
It is proportional representation that will open up the process to "real choices, new voices", and will end the two-party duopoly. One of my unfinished projects is to summarize the critique of Plurality given in Douglas J. Amy's book. Exaggerated majorities, manufactured majorities, gerrymandering as an inevitable part of the system, denial of representation to minorities of all kinds, issueless campaigns, etc. etc.
PART TWO: CONCERNS RELATING TO IMPLEMENTATION OF OTHER METHODS
(JBH) The key implementation issue is the use of ranked ballots. IRV folks and Condorcet folks can agree on those; the question for the unity of the reform movement is whether Approval advocates can also sign onto ranked ballots. I think a reasonable compromise would be for IRV and Condorcet folks to insist on a ranked ballot that allows ranking two or more candidates as tied. This would then be adaptable to straight Approval or to the three-level, four-level, N-level modifications of Approval that have been discussed.
How the ballots are then tallied to find a winner is open to discussion. The OVERRIDING consideration is that the method be seen by the electorate as providing "legitimacy" to the winner. IRV is easy to understand, as a series of runoffs with one fewer candidate each time. I hate to call it this, but it could be called "musical chairs runoff". Everyone is familiar with the concept of eliminating one candidate at a time, to find a winner.
Condorcet advocates might consider a name change; call it "tournament runoff". At least some types of sports (Chess, Judo, maybe others) hold tournaments where every contestant is paired off versus every other in turn. It might be easier to sell the idea to the public if you present it as a round-robin tournament between all candidates. If one emerges undefeated from all possible two-person runoffs, they are declared the tournament champion. If nobody is undefeated, then we name ________________ as the tournament winner.
The blank must be filled in a way that is easily understood. Suppose we said "the one who wins the greatest number of two-person runoffs". Is this the same as the Borda Count winner? Someone named Black proposed that as a Condorcet completion method; Merrill compared Black's method with others in his book. Advocates of other Condorcet-based methods should work on a one-sentence description to fill in the blank. If we allow ties on the ranked ballots, we must also consider the possibility of ties at the end of whatever method; designate a tie-breaker.
Approval advocates would either have to agree on a method for converting ranked ballots to approvals, that could be easily explained to children and busy adults, or sell the idea of declaring the "most widely acceptable" candidate the winner, "acceptable" being everyone listed on the first line of the ballot.
In general, I think that it is very counter-productive for advocates of
Condorcet and Approval to spend their efforts trying to block attempts to
implement IRV. It seems obvious that their effort would be better spent
trying to implement their own favorite system, rather than defending
plurality against IRV.
This is a very big country, and there are lots of people who use voting
to decide things, and most of those people are still using plurality. Use
of IRV hardly means blocking Condorcet. 99% of the time, it means
overturning plurality or two round runoff.
(JBH) [Standing ovation.]
Perhaps when we are deciding on which method to use to elect the
president, this will no longer be the case, but we are quite a long way
off that point, and for now the field is wide open.
It seems to me that there is tons of room for people to implement IRV in
some places, Condorcet in others, Approval in others, and still more
systems in others. Not only is this the most cooperative approach for the
movement to take, it is also the one that provides for the most feedback.
That is, if many groups are using each of the different methods, then
voting methods organizers will be able to track the results and see how
the different methods are working under different circumstances, and this
will enrich the theoretical debate immensely.
(JBH) "Let a hundred flowers bloom. Let a hundred schools of thought contend."
CONCLUSION
I have presented some of my opinions here. Although I am uncertain about
some things, I feel fairly sure about others. I am fairly sure that IRV is
technically better than plurality. I am fairly sure that IRV, Condorcet,
and Approval people should try to treat each other as allies rather than
competitors, and that they should not try to strawman or exclude each
others' systems.
I think that the voting methods movement will be healthier given a
pluralistic, multi-system approach, that is one in which different
alternative systems are being advocated for and implemented
simultaneously. I don't think that we should try to close off debate and
resolve on a single system before we begin advocacy. I think that we
should give people a chance to make intelligent decisions about voting
systems, rather than only letting them know about the system that we like
best. Of course, if they only ask for one recommendation, then we should
give them the one we prefer. But if they are interested in the
alternatives, then we should not hide them or give false arguments against
them.
Sincerely, James
(JBH) Let us unite in criticizing Plurality, supporting Proportional Representation for all Legislative seats, and trying alternative single-winner methods for all Executive seats.
--
----------------------------------
John B. Hodges, jbhodges@ @usit.net
The two-party system is obsolete and dysfunctional.
Better forms of democracy: www.fairvote.org
REAL CHOICES, NEW VOICES, by Douglas J. Amy.
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
