I don't think Prof. Gierzynski's assessment is unbiased. It is important for readers to know that Gierzynski ran (and lost) as a Democratic candidate against the Progressive Party candidate Bob Kiss in a race for the legislature a few year previous to his current assessment of IRV, in which his former opponent won the IRV mayor's race. It is also important to know that Gierzynski favors a "two party system" and his basic view is that plurality voting is best because it encourages divergent groups to compromise BEFORE the election so that voters are presented with only two choices in the election...He makes the point that political groups that fail to do this will appropriately be punished by the spoiler dynamic.
Terry Bouricius ----- Original Message ----- From: "robert bristow-johnson" <r...@audioimagination.com> To: "Warren Smith" <warren....@gmail.com> Cc: "election-methods" <election-meth...@electorama.com> Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 5:15 PM Subject: Re: [EM] IRV in Burlington VT On Jan 9, 2010, at 4:28 PM, Warren Smith wrote: > See this report on the Burlington 2009 IRV pathologies: > > http://rangevoting.org/Burlington.html > > one of the co-authors, Anthony Gierzynski, > is a UVM professor who lives in Burlington. > Prof. Gierzynski *works* in Burlington, but lives in Montpelier. i am not sure where he was living last March 3, but i doubt that his stake in this election is direct. his stake is professional and scholarly. but, as a non-resident, he doesn't have the same stake that either i or Terry have. > The report refutes a lot of lies commonly told about IRV, > and concludes that this election > "singled out IRV & plurality as nearly-uniquely bad performers > [among all > commonly-proposed election methods]." i might even agree with that > Given this experience, I would suggest that Burlington switch to a > method different from plurality and different from IRV. Some obvious > contenders are approval and range voting. Warren, why is Condorcet not included? the problem with Approval voting is that it requires too little information from the voters. and the problem with Range voting is that it requires too much. if you support a particular candidate (let's say the Dem) but you approve of two (say both the Dem and the Prog), you have a problem with voting strategy with Approval. maybe, depending on how other folks vote, you can help your favorite against the candidate you tepidly support, so you punch "Approve" for your fav only. or, maybe your fav is actually not in really in the running and the election becomes a contest between your fallback candidate and the guy you think is a piece of crap. then "what to do, what to do?? oh me oh my!" (the savvy voter must thing strategically.) most people will just approve the single candidate they support and, if nearly all do that, there is no difference between Approval and Plurality. with Range voting, again if you support a particular candidate but you sorta approve of two, you have a problem with voting strategy again. depending on what other people are doing, it may be best (for your interests) to plop all of your points onto your fav. but what if it becomes a contest between your fallback and the piece of crap candidate? again "what to do, what to do?? oh me oh my!" the Ranked-Order Ballot extracts the correct amount of information from the voter. if the voter rankes A>B>C>D, the ballot makes no assumption regarding how much more the voter likes A over B compared to how much the voter likes B>C. maybe the voter likes A and B almost equally (but A just a little more) but thinks C is a piece of crap. or maybe both B and C are crappy, but B is a little more tolerable than C. the problem with Borda is that it assumes the difference in preference are the same between adjacently ranked candidates (an assumption not supported or refuted by the voter or his ballot). the ranked-order ballot only asks the voter: if the election were solely between A and B (or any other pair), who would the voter vote for? the problem with IRV is that it doesn't decide the election by viewing the ballot information as such. instead IRV and the single transferrable vote method looks at a voter's vote as a commodity to be transferred from one preference to another based on the arbitrary rule that only 1st-choice votes count when determining who the biggest loser is and eliminating that "loser". 2nd-choice votes are no better than last place in that evaluation. i am a DSP algorithm engineer; one of the things we hate the most (and are sometime unavoidable) are arbitrarily-set thresholds, we know that bad shit happens when the numbers just don't quite get to the threshold. immediately, in 2005, when i read the IRV law i was signing, i recognized that as a problem, but hoped it would elect the Condorcet winner anyway (and it did in 2006). even though there is the *possibility* of a cycle (and thus a *possible* strategy of some to try to throw a Condorcet election into a cycle) the likelyhood is soooo low, because of political alignment along the major axis of the political spectrum. Nader voters in 2000 were not likely to choose Bush for their 2nd-choice over Gore. even if voting strategists succeed in throwing a Condorcet election into a cycle, they have no solid control in advance about how that cycle will be resolved. sounds like a dangerous "strategy" and i doubt anyone will try it or be successful doing so in reality. > The difficulty is, that due to the fact that the world in > general and Burlington in particular, is inhabited by morons, some of us are morons, that is true. > the ballot issue probably is going to consist of exactly of the two > worst choices "(a) IRV or (b) go back to plurality?" > with no third choice being offered. no shit. that's what i've been crying in the wilderness since last March. lately, where i've been crying is: http://7d.blogs.com/blurt/2009/12/burlington-residents-seek-repeal-of- instant-runoff-voting/comments/page/2/#comments . > Furthermore, without a decent voting system, > even HAVING an election with 3 or more choices, is rendered dubious > and risky. no shit. but, at least with IRV, we are not risking electing the slightly unpopular GOP candidate in this town of liberals. with the old law (which requires a 40%+ plurality or it goes to runoff), there is a greater risk of electing the unpopular GOP candidate, which is why the GOPers are the biggest supporters of the repeal question. > Ludicrous, isn't it? about as ludi as the Electoral College. -- r b-j r...@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge." ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
