David L Wetzell wrote:
http://politeaparty.blogspot.com/2011/11/free-and-fair-elections-and-their.html
They're trying to end the use of IRV in SF.
Obviously, they're concerned about non-monotonicity or that the
Condorcet candidate is not guaranteed...
I'm still writing my reply to the long mail, trying to shorten it. But
while I'm doing that, I can reply to this, if briefly.
If the IRV-opponents are concerned about non-monotonicity or the lack of
Condorcet, neither the page nor the KQED page it links to mentions this.
I also hope that you're not implying that non-monotonicity or
lack-of-Condorcet objections are somehow disingenuous and that
IRV-opponents are all incumbents trying to protect their little domains.
While I don't find it that important, I can see how some could object to
the relative opacity of IRV. Plurality has its score (how many top votes
each candidate got), Range has mean score, and Minmax has the magnitude
of the worst defeat (where lesser is better). What does IRV have? It has
the round in which the candidate was eliminated, but that doesn't, by
itself, say anything about whether it was a squeaker or the candidate
was a sure loser.
(In a sense, this ties in with the sensitivity to initial conditions of
IRV. You might say "B lost in the second round, and the guy that was
next to last in the second round only survived by a single vote, so that
was close". But perhaps B would have led someone else (D instead of E)
to win, had he survived -- or perhaps defeating C instead of being
defeated by C would only have made B lose soundly in a later round?)
I think that if IRV3/AV3 were used instead, it would be easier to
explain the vote-counting method to folks.
I think it'd be easier if a two stage approach were used. Like
before, let folks rank up to three candidates.
Then, in the first stage, count up the number of times each
candidate gets ranked by voter(if voters ranked the same candidate
more than once, it would only count once). Publish these results on
election night. Make the three candidates who get ranked most often
be the finalists.
Then, for the second stage, use an instant runoff vote. First, tally
the number of times the three finalists are the favorite of voters.
If one is preferred by a majority of voters then (s)he is the
winner. Otherwise, eliminate the candidate who is preferred by the
fewest voters and transfer her/his votes as much as possible to the
other two candidates. Then, after tallying the votes for the two
finalists, the one with the most votes wins.
Does that sound simple enuf, D.Eris? It could be done in two days
time, most of the time...
dlw
The real issue that prevents electoral reform in the US is marketing,
not electoral analytics. Electoral analytics, as illustrated by this
board, are very good at exposing attempts to pass bad election reforms
for the wrong reasons. But I don't think it works in creating a working
consensus on which electoral reforms to push for among activists. This
is illustrated by how your own "consensus" statement recommends 4
alternatives to FPTP and waves its hands over IRV. It also says nothing
about the pragmatic use of PR to make "more local" elections become
competitive, to handicap the cut-throat rivalry between the two major
parties and to make them both more attentive to the issues of minority
groups.
It says nothing about the use of PR in a local setting to handicap
rivalry between the two major parties because we don't know that it will
do so enough to matter. More generally, it doesn't mention PR as it
can't cover too wide an area - there was an earlier objection that the
declaration was already too long.
(I do like PR, but I can see that logic.)
So how about it? Can we try to rewrite the consensus statement to
include an endorsement of IRV3/AV3 and to make it more marketable to
#OWS and other folks?
If you think the statement is too dilute as it is, then wouldn't adding
another method make it less forceful still?
You could, as Richard points out, sign the statement and then say you
support IRV3/AV3 as an improvement upon IRV. If you want to see
Plurality gone, and think the main proposed alternatives would work, why
not?
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
