Blair Bobier takes on a target here which deserves defeating - but
seems to me that he was fighting with one arm tied behind his back.
Plurality should be more recognized as a loser - too easy to get two
candidates on side X of an issue and one on side Y. Assuming
popularity of X and Y is any place near a tie, the X candidates will
share the X votes, and the Y candidate will win due to no sharing,
rather than needing to be more popular than side X.
Plurality sees this problem as important enough to invest in adding
primary elections to the system - let the X party pick one candidate to
enter the general election with Y. Still has problems, but is an
improvement.
Top Two, as I read this post, is doing Plurality in its primary -
keeping Plurality's problems even though it is doing a primary and
passes off two candidates for the general election.
Blair does note the difficulty of doing an effective primary so far
from the general election.
I would describe ranked choice voting a bit simpler:
Voter votes true first preference as first choice. Do not need
the hair pulling that can accompany making the one choice permitted for
Plurality. While these do not decide winner by themselves, first
choices CAN be counted - and the nearer a candidate gets to winning,
the more attention winners should pay to this candidate's desires, both
now and for the next election.
If voter has no more input to offer, should this candidate lose -
this is the end of voter input.
BUT, wanting to say more, voter can make more choices in order -
such as picking between likely winners after voting better-liked
choices,
I said ranked choice voting above because I argue the Condorcet method
of counting is better than the IRV method - but it is more important to
defeat worse methods, such as Top Two, before we debate counting,
I do not know if Green or Libertarian candidates should expect to win
often BUT, the more attention the major parties pay to their vote
counts:
The more the minor parties can succeed with such demands as they
can sell to the voters.
If the major parties do not listen, the better the chance of a
minor party winner.
DWK
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 23:01:33 -0600 (CST) Anthony Lorenzo wrote:
> [For related info, see the FairVote amicus brief in the Washington
case on the top two primary at: http://www.fairvote.org/?page=1701 ]
>
>
> Web Site:
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2005/12/20/ed.col.bobier.1220.p1.php?section=opinion
>
> 'Top Two' ballot method would restrict choice
> By Blair Bobier
> Published: Tuesday, December 20, 2005
>
> The Top Two primary proposed by Norma Paulus and Phil Keisling is
widely misunderstood and would greatly restrict freedom of choice in
Oregon.
>
> Oregonians should understand the far-reaching consequences of this
dubious initiative before agreeing to place it on the ballot, as The
Register-Guard suggested in a Dec. 4 editorial.
>
> The former secretaries of state propose that Oregon ditch its current
primary format in favor of a system used by only one other state:
Louisiana, hardly a model of clean elections and good government.
>
> Under the Paulus-Keisling scheme, all candidates from all parties,
and any independent contenders, would compete in one big free-for-all
primary election. The top two vote-getters, regardless of party, would
advance to the November general election.
>
> This means that in some districts voters' ''choices'' would be
limited to two Republicans, while in other districts the ''choice''
would be between two Democrats. The odds of seeing an independent,
Green or Libertarian candidate in November would be about 1,000 to 1,
based on the history of states that have used Top Two.
>
> Freedom of choice is the heart and soul of the democratic process. If
we can choose from hundreds of television channels and 31 flavors of
ice cream, why should we be limited to two options for one of our most
important civic decisions?
>
> If Top Two were in effect, Oregonians would have two choices on
Election Day - while the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan can now
choose among hundreds of parties and candidates.
>
> Although the theory behind the Top Two proposal is that candidates
who survive the primary would have broad support, in reality the
opposite is true. Oregon's May primaries are notorious for their low
turnout. Very few people would be deciding which candidates appear on
the November ballot.
>
> Worse, with so many candidates competing in one race, a candidate
could advance to the general election with the support of less than 10
percent of eligible voters. That's hardly the broad support that Paulus
and Keisling are seeking.
>
> Let's do better: Why not insist that candidates earn the support of a
majority of voters? This could be done by using instant runoff voting.
Instant runoff voting produces majority winners, encourages the
participation of independent voters (one fifth of Oregon's electorate)
and eliminates the spoiler and wasted-vote syndromes.
>
> Instead of voting for just one candidate, voters rank candidates in
order of preference - first, second, third and so on. If a candidate
wins a majority of first-choice votes, that candidate wins. If no
candidate wins a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is
eliminated and a runoff is conducted immediately, taking into account
the second choice votes on the ballots cast for the eliminated
candidate.
>
> Instant runoff voting would give a voice to independent voters and
third parties. Top Two would silence them. Instant runoff voting
requires that candidates earn a majority of votes to win; Top Two
allows candidates to skate by with minimal backing.
>
> Instant runoff voting is used throughout the world. It's used to
elect the winner of the Heisman Trophy and the president of the
American Political Science Association. When instant runoff voting was
used in San Francisco in 2004, The New York Times reported that it
resulted in an astonishing level of cooperation and civility among
candidates. They recognized that this election method required them to
reach a broad cross section of citizens.
>
> There are many ways to improve Oregon's elections. But whatever we
do, let's make sure we understand the ramifications of the proposed
reforms. Top Two, which was rejected last year by California voters and
declared unconstitutional by a federal judge in Washington, is so
misunderstood that it is often mistaken for an open primary - an
entirely different system.
>
> Our system of self-government works well only when voters make
informed choices. With so little known about Top Two and its potential
to radically restrict democracy, it is irresponsible to suggest that
this proposal deserves a place on the ballot.
>
> Blair Bobier is the founder of the Corvallis-based Civics Education
League and an adjunct professor of political science at Western Oregon
University. As the media director for the Green Party's 2004
presidential campaign, Bobier was instrumental in initiating the
statewide recount of presidential votes in Ohio.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
----
election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
