At 12:45 PM 3/14/2013, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
except for IRV *any* existing runoff method is a delayed runoff, a
"second ballot" that is marked, usually weeks later. the expense of
the delayed runoff was not the major argument against it.
the principle argument is the greatly reduced voter turnout at the
runoff (it's generally argued by election reformers that increasing
voter turnout is good for democracy, one reason why we're for "motor
voter" laws).
Increasing voter turnout, by itself, is not particularly a benefit.
It can just increase noise, and it makes elections more vulnerable to
mass-media influence. Yes, this is an argument often advanced.
the next argument is that if the "loser" (whether this loser was the
first or second vote-getter in the first election) dumps a truckload
of money into the runoff election that is not matched by his/her
opponent, that he/she can "pull 'victory' out of the jaws of
defeat". but "victory" for who?? might be a defeat for the
majority of the original electorate, thus also decreasing the value
for the electorate.) the cost of the runoff would come in about 3rd
place as reasons for ditching it.
It's never a "defeat" for the original electorate, in fact, because
if they care, they see that fancy campaign and they turn out and
vote. In reality, in the kinds of elections where IRV is being
considered, if it's replacing runoff voting, real runoffs allow dark
horses to win. Not by money, but by convincing the voters!
i would add that it is *not* necessarily the case that the top two
vote getters are the correct pair of candidates to put into the
runoff. certainly not in Burlington VT in 2009 (if we had not
adopted IRV in 2005, the Condorcet winner would not have advanced to
the delayed runoff). this problem is *not* addressed by IRV.
That's correct. I could easily be addressed in a better two-round
system, and why runoff systems, for a long time, were presumed to
always be vote-for-one systems, while single ballot systems were
proposed as sophisticated and complex methods, is beyond me.
Simply Approval Voting in a two-round system can improve it, Bucklin
actually simulates progressive-Approval-cutoff three rounds -- in the
original form, with the final round allowing multiple votes, but a
hybrid system using a Range ballot could make much better choices,
including identifying Condorcet winners and guaranteeing that such
get into the runoff, if a runoff is needed.
My sense is that with good primary and runoff systems, far better
choices could be made, many runoffs could be avoided, and, then, when
a runoff is necessary, it would include the best candidates. With a
decent runoff system, that could easily be three plus write-in, or
*at least two plus write-in.*
I'll add that in Canada the FairVote group directly advocates STV and
European-based PR methods, not the stepping-stone IRV path.
no FairVote group advocates IRV as a stepping stone.
Of course not. However, FairVote *chose to work for IRV* as a
stepping stone. "Advocating" it as a stepping stone would be a losing strategy!
the problem is getting Rob and the other FairVote advocates to learn
something from *both* the failures of IRV in function (the
Burlington 2009 election is the textbook example, but also is the
surviving IRV elections where the number of ranking levels is
limited to far less than the number of condidates on the ballot,
like in SF) and politically (the few places that have repealed it).
Sure.
like certain corporations that sell a product and cannot admit to
themselves the intrinsic shortcomings in their product until the
market makes it clear (and the product and company fail in the
marketplace), FairVote will not risk admitting to any blemishes in
their product, let alone admitting to the failure of their product
to work in a meaningful test case (a test case that is difficult,
like when there are 3 or 4 candidates, all roughly equal in popular
support). IRV will prevent a true spoiler (that is a candidate with
no viable chance of winning, but whose presence in the race changes
who the winner is) from spoiling the election, but if the "spoiler"
and the two leaders are all roughly equal going into the election,
IRV can fail and *has* failed (and Burlington 2009 is that example).
Exactly.
the purpose of having more than two viable parties (and/or having
viable independent candidates) is to give the voters another choice
when otherwise they may be forced to choose between "Dumb and
Dumber". unfortunately, after this failure, we were faced again with
the choice between Dumb and Dumber (IRV vs. plurality or delayed
runoff) and this time, as has happened before, Dumber won.
The tragedy is that "delayed runoff" ... i.e, real runoff elections
... could easily be improved, so that many or most would be unnecessary.
Doing this in San Francisco with over twenty candidates, though,
might be difficult. There is a common phenomenon that if an advanced
voting system is implemented, many more candidates file. That, then,
tends toward majority failure. There are many possible solutions.
The majority requirement can be relaxed. Or we can notice that
Robert's Rules actually likes repeated ballot, because it allows
voters a better look at the candidates, now knowing who is really a
serious candidate. My guess is that this is behind the one-third of
nonpartisan runoff elections that are "comebacks." People didn't know
that runner-up well enough. Allowing three candidates into a runoff
-- or two plus write-in, say -- could improve results.
The alleged low turnout of runoff elections has several implications.
Some jurisdictions reverse the sequence and hold primaries early,
then a runoff, if needed, in the general election. That could simply
be done routinely.
Or there is the possibility of going to a parliamentary system and
using Asset Voting. One election, no runoffs needed, and an electoral
college is created that could do things like replace an incapacitated
candidate .... or even manage a recall.
Some group of students somewhere is going to realize how
crazy-powerful Asset Voting is, and implement it for student
elections.... and then they will see what *real democracy* looks
like. If it's done right. Asset is hybrid representative/direct democracy.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
