Jameson,
I'll respond to your three points...but understand, I am not on FairVote's
board, nor an employee (though I am sometimes paid as a consulting policy
analyst), so the responses are my understanding of FairVote's positions, with
my own opinions included.
<snip>
1. Don't denigrate other solutions to problems you acknowledge. In fact, I
think you should support them. That means that whenever comparing IRV to
another reform proposal, make it clear from the outset that the other proposal
is superior to plurality (except in the very rare cases where it isn't).
<snip>
STV-PR is my primary interest, I believe IRV is an improvement over the status
quo and a plausible path to PR. I completely agree with Jameson's suggestion,
and I try to always do this. I would encourage advocates of other methods to
do likewise. Compare how FairVote discusses various voting methods on its Web
site with the way IRV is attacked on the Range Voting site, for example. The
comparative pieces on Approval, etc. have been responsive to attacks against
IRV, rather than attempts to undercut any reform effort that may arise for
Approval Voting.
A primary concern we have come across consistently from average voters when
presenting election method reforms, is the concern about Later-No-Harm. People
have some vague concept of Borda rules, and ask whether ranking second choices
under IRV might hurt their favorite candidate. Our experience has shown that
this is just about the ONLY election method criterion that spontaneously occurs
to average voters when learning about new methods. It may not be ultimately the
most important criterion, but methods that violate Later-No-Harm seem to have
no hope of adoption, and FairVote isn't going to devote resources to futile
reforms.
When asked about other governmental election method reform ideas I mention pros
and cons of each and express why I believe some other systems are not
achievable (often simply due to the fact that there are no examples of any
other governments using the methods, making officials highly reluctant to be
the first guinea pig), or are not as good, in my opinion, as STV. In fact I
often raise Condorcet as a reasonable method (though I also state why I think
it is unachievable in America at present). As an example, in this video of
Rep. Mark Larson speaking on IRV to a workshop at the 2009 Democracy Fest,
http://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/programs/instant-runoff-voting-0 at around 14:00
minutes, you will note that I was the one who brought up the Condorcet concept
(Vanilla ice cream was the apparent Condorcet winner of the just completed IRV
demonstration). I support Condorcet as preferable to plurality, and have even
helped draft Condorcet legislation.
But experience has convinced me that Condorcet is not a reform that can be won.
FairVote is seeking to improve election rules NOW, and IRV and PR-STV appear to
be the only positive voting method reforms that have a real prospect for
enactment in the foreseeable future. The key factors leading to this conclusion
are:
1. These reforms have been used for governmental elections for over 100 years.
2. These reforms have been adopted, and are being used in the U.S.
3. IRV has an analog (two-round runoff) already used in America, with which
voters are familiar and comfortable (that is elimination of bottom candidates
is deemed appropriate by most voters).
As an example, the commission set up in Colorado to examine alternative voting
methods had a lengthy presentation from Range Voting supporters, but they
rejected it and favored the single transferable vote algorithm.
Of course, IRV and STV can also be repealed (and have been in some
jurisdictions). However, it is important to understand why. Some people have
suggested that IRV's failure to elect the Condorcet candidate caused its repeal
in Burlington. That is not correct. The repeal had everything to do with the
support for the Republican plurality winner, a heavy Republican-leaning turnout
in March, combined with the anti-Mayor Bob Kiss sentiment resulting from a
local financial scandal. If Bob Kiss had been the Condorcet winner, there STILL
would have been the same "Keep Voting Simple" repeal. Any method that does not
affirm the traditional plurality winner as the "rightful" winner (all of the
methods advocated on the Election Methods list) would be subject to the same
repeal risk.
I would hope supporters of other reforms would try to enact their preferred
reform in non-governmental organizations and municipal government elections
anywhere in the U.S. that is not already engaged in IRV or STV reform, so we
can get some real world experience with them. FairVote will absolutely NOT seek
to undercut such reform efforts.
<snip>
2. Don't lie about the benefits of IRV. For instance, unless full ranking is
mandatory, IRV does not guarantee a majority. You could say instead that it
"does a better job of getting a majority" than plurality, or whatever.
<snip>
I don't lie about IRV. Some over-simplifications that experts might view as
"false," that appeared in old FairVote material, are being weeded out. There
are, of course, common usage issues, which you also seem to be referring to.
FairVote uses the term "majority winner" in the same way that it is generally
used by the public in discussing runoff elections. Of course, no method can
"guarantee" that a majority will like the winner (there may be a tie, or simply
no candidate that voters even like at all).
An absolutist definition of "majority" is never used by anybody, when
discussing elections in the U.S. So when we use the term "majority" we do not
mean a majority of people in a jurisdiction, nor a majority of the voting age
population, nor a majority of registered voters, nor a majority of voters who
went to the polls, nor a majority of voters that includes those who skipped a
contest in the first round, nor a majority of voters that includes those who
skipped the final contest, by staying home in the case of a separate runoff, or
ranking neither finalist in the case of IRV. Just as in a traditional runoff,
we mean a majority of those who expressed an opinion in the contest between the
two finalists. Runoffs always exclude from the denominator children,
non-registered, non-participating voters, and voters who abstain from the
question of which of the two finalists is better (or less intolerable).
Condorcet enthusiast Robert Bristow-Johnson (unintentionally) paraphrased this
concept of two-choice majority in his recent email, when he wrote: "between any
two candidates, there is always a majority, unless they tie." The only
difference is whether one accepts that under a traditional runoff system and
IRV the final round is, in fact, a contest between "two candidates." Both
traditional runoffs and IRV rely on this concept of narrowing the field to two
finalists, for the purpose of finding a majority winner. This is not the only
way to achieve this, but a standard way, though I would not dispute that
Condorcet can ALSO find a majority winner in most situations.
In Burlington, there was a separate runoff election in 2009 in a city council
race (IRV only applied to mayoral races), in which the "majority winner" of the
runoff got fewer votes in the runoff than the "loser" got in the first round,
due to a substantial drop-off in participation (abstention). The media, text
books and the public refer to such winners as the "majority winner," even
though we have no idea if one of the other candidates was in fact the Condorcet
winner (without ranked ballots we simply don't know). That same video, I
mentioned above, has a section (starting at 22:30) where Rep. Larson discusses
this issue of the definition of majority. Election method experts may wish to
use a more rigorous definition of "majority," but FairVote uses the word the
way reporters, election officials and the general public use it, and doing so
is not lying.
<snip>
3. Be open to dialogue with other voting reformers. For instance, don't turn
off comments on all your blogs and HuffPost pieces, and don't moderate out
relevant but critical posts on the instantrunoff mailing list. I know that it
hurts, because there are definitely people with much more of an animus against
IRV than I have, but the problems in running away from dialogue are worse.
<snip>
FairVote on its 501-c-3 website wants to start having a greater range of
information about different voting methods, rather than maintain a narrow focus
on STV (and IRV). For legislative elections, FairVote clearly favors STV, but
also provides information on cumulative voting, limited voting and list voting,
etc. because these are systems that are used in governmental elections.
FairVote doesn't devote much space to theoretical methods (either single seat
or multi-seat) that don't have any track record in government elections.
FairVote has limited resources and time to devote to theoretical discussions.
FairVote is focused on improving voting methods now.
As to allowing Blog comments...FairVote has always allowed comments on its Web
site Blog (and you'll find lots of scathing criticisms there). I suspect the
reason that comments have been turned off on some outside Blogs is a reaction
to the misleading and vitriolic attacks of a few rabidly anti-reform zealots
who are constantly scouring the Internet to post their misleading attacks. It
is a shame that fair and thoughtful comments become the fall-out victims of
this, but FairVote does not want to promote the voices that are undercutting
any serious election method reform. We also participates in dialogue on the
Election Methods list. Others are free to write and submit their own opinion
pieces to the Huffington Post, or newspapers, or anywhere they wish.
-Terry Bouricius
----- Original Message -----
From: Jameson Quinn
To: ter...@burlingtontelecom.net ; instantrun...@yahoogroups.com
Cc: robert bristow-johnson ; Election Methods
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [EM] piling on against IRV (was ... Czech Green party - Council
elections)
Letting loose can be very difficult - but many of us are urging FairVote to
swallow the bitter pill.
I manned phones, made donations to FairVote, and voted, to help pass IRV in
San Francisco. And I now, personally, think that IRV is considerably worse than
most systems besides plurality and Borda - including Range, Bucklin, Approval,
and a wide variety of Condorcet systems.
But I'm not asking FairVote to "swallow the bitter pill". I think you have
every right to continue promoting IRV, if that's what you believe in. I'm just
asking you what I've always asked, since the time when I still counted myself
as one of your strongest supporters: that you be honest and open about it. That
means 3 things:
1. Don't denigrate other solutions to problems you acknowledge. In fact, I
think you should support them. That means that whenever comparing IRV to
another reform proposal, make it clear from the outset that the other proposal
is superior to plurality (except in the very rare cases where it isn't).
2. Don't lie about the benefits of IRV. For instance, unless full ranking is
mandatory, IRV does not guarantee a majority. You could say instead that it
"does a better job of getting a majority" than plurality, or whatever.
3. Be open to dialogue with other voting reformers. For instance, don't turn
off comments on all your blogs and HuffPost pieces, and don't moderate out
relevant but critical posts on the instantrunoff mailing list. I know that it
hurts, because there are definitely people with much more of an animus against
IRV than I have, but the problems in running away from dialogue are worse.
With respect,
Jameson Quinn----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
