Re: [EM] Proportional Representation Systems I'd Support
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:08 AM, James Gilmour wrote: > In the (much) more complicated Swiss system, the "apparentenement" is > determined by each individual > voter. Do you have a link to the method that they use? Is it just open party list? Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Condorcet How?
Dear Robert, > Terry Bouricius is also a Burlington resident > and is known in Burlington for being the primary > promoter of IRV (i think that's right, ain't it > Terry?). i didn't see him at the debate, but > Rep. Mark Larson and someone from League of > Women Voters were on the pro- IRV side and they > didn't come fightin', in my opinion. and part > of the problem is that *they* didn't really > understand or acknowledge the cascade of > anomalies that resulted when the IRV election > fails to elect the Condorcet winner as it did > in 2009. Here are some videos with Terry Bouricius: http://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/programs/instant-runoff-voting-debate http://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/programs/instant-runoff-voting-0 http://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/programs/leaguewmn-s-voters-instant-run-voting Terry's main argument against the adoption of Condorcet methods is that they aren't used in governmental elections (first video, 00:24:04 -- 00:25:36). Markus Schulze Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Condorcet How?
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 2:46 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: > and, i'm not sure who, but someone introduced a measure in the state > legislature to elected the governor by IRV (there is a perennial Prog > candidate that doesn't get any traction because Vermont is not all like > Burlington or Brattleboro). but we know (and Kathy won't let us forget) > that IRV is not "precinct summable" and that would be a ridiculous mess for > a statewide election (they would have to transmit via internet, individual > ballot data to the capitol for tabulation and then securely bring up a disk > or thumb drive (and the original paper ballots) with the ballot data up for > verification on a later date. This isn't strictly true. An alternative to central counting would be for additional communication from the central location. Something like - Each local area counts first choices and sends its result to the central location - central location figures out if anyone has a majority, if not it declares a candidate eliminated - local count centers eliminate that candidate and send updated totals - (and repeat) It isn't as fast as each center being able to do it at its own pace. Also, each round takes as long as the slowest local center. Also, in principle, the central count could issue instructions like "provisionally eliminate X" after it has only received part of the count from a specific round. If the remainder of the votes mean that X isn't eliminated, then it could be canceled. In most cases, a provisional command based on 50%+ of the ballots it likely to be correct, especially if the margin is small enough. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Condorcet How?
Robert, Two corrections...Bills to use IRV for certain statewide elections have been introduced in Vermont in every session since 1998, and it was passed by the Vermont House and Senate a few years ago. It would require IRV for U.S. House and Senate elections. That bill, however was vetoed by the Republican governor. The Secretary of State planned to conduct the statewide IRV tally (if the initial first choice totals showed no majority winner), by having the sheriffs transport the sealed ballot bags to regional count centers, and having the IRV tally done by hand. Since the bill, as passed, actually used a top-two contingent system (only the top two initial candidates would advance), the tally would be relatively easy. Terry - Original Message - From: "robert bristow-johnson" To: "election-methods List" Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 10:46 PM Subject: Re: [EM] Condorcet How? On Mar 22, 2010, at 6:06 PM, Markus Schulze wrote: > Dear Robert, > > are you the questioner at 00:42:00 -- 00:44:25? it could be. i dunno if i wanna load the video again and figure that out. i was pointing out that the purpose we adopted IRV in the first place was to relieve the split majority the burden of strategic voting in the form of compromising. the liberal majority did not have to make a painful choice between Prog and Dem as they would with the "traditional" ballot. but that burden wasn't eliminated, but transferred to those that preferred Wright first, Kiss not at all, and Montroll somewhere in between. (i like to call them "GOP Prog- haters".) those folks actually caused the Prog to be elected purely by marking the GOP as their first choice. whether it's Nader in 2000 or Wright in 2009, we should be able to vote for our favorite without electing our least favorite. but this minority group wanted to just toss that burden back to the majority group and i wanted to know if the anti-IRVers understood that and how they thought that it's better to burden the majority. i was interrupted before i could frame the question and they said they didn't understand the question and didn't answer it. the thing that was very irritating to me was that the pro-IRV folks surely didn't come to this knife fight with their knives sharpened. i couldn't even tell that they brought their knives. there were so many dumb things the anti-IRV side said that should have been pounced on and was let go. Terry Bouricius is also a Burlington resident and is known in Burlington for being the primary promoter of IRV (i think that's right, ain't it Terry?). i didn't see him at the debate, but Rep. Mark Larson and someone from League of Women Voters were on the pro- IRV side and they didn't come fightin', in my opinion. and part of the problem is that *they* didn't really understand or acknowledge the cascade of anomalies that resulted when the IRV election fails to elect the Condorcet winner as it did in 2009. and, i'm not sure who, but someone introduced a measure in the state legislature to elected the governor by IRV (there is a perennial Prog candidate that doesn't get any traction because Vermont is not all like Burlington or Brattleboro). but we know (and Kathy won't let us forget) that IRV is not "precinct summable" and that would be a ridiculous mess for a statewide election (they would have to transmit via internet, individual ballot data to the capitol for tabulation and then securely bring up a disk or thumb drive (and the original paper ballots) with the ballot data up for verification on a later date. it's not so instant if the central counting location is distant. more so now (after the IRV repeal), but that bill had essentially zero chance of being passed by the legislature and the introduction of it was not well conceived. and that also should be a lesson to FairVote regarding where (and why) they should be marketing IRV. i'm still mostly bent outa shape that wherever Preferential Voting was introduced to some population for use in government, it is also introduced only with the STV method of tabulation (under whatever name: "IRV" "RCV"). what a sad mistake. i really think that FairVote and other IRV promoters should soberly assess the product that they are selling instead of continuing to focus on how they're gonna market it. IRV is bound to screw up again and will, by association, sully the ranked ballot. -- 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
Re: [EM] Proportional Representation Systems I'd Support
Raph Frank > Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:08 AM > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:08 AM, James Gilmour > wrote: > > In the (much) more complicated Swiss system, the "apparentenement" is > > determined by each individual voter. > > Do you have a link to the method that they use? Is it just > open party list? Raph, in a word, no. I'm afraid you'll have to do your own searching. You'll probably find the documents are in German, French, Italian and Romanche, the four official languages of Switzerland. My info was taken from Enid Lakeman's book, fourth edition 1974: "How Democracies Vote". Fortunately for me, that is written in English. With regard to the "Conseil National" (the lower house of the Swiss Federal Parliament), she says each elector has as many votes are there are seats to be filled in each "electoral direct" = one Canton or one-half Canton. In 1967 there were four 1-member electoral districts and the others returned between 2 and 35 members each (total seats = 200). Voters may distribute their votes among all the candidates nominated, freely across party lists, and cumulate two votes, but not more, on any candidate. The votes in each list (or combination of allied lists) are totalled and the seats allocated to parties (or combinations of parties) in proportion to those totals. The allocated seats are filled by candidates in order of the numbers of votes received. There are almost certainly differences from this federal system in the arrangements and counting rules for Cantonal and local government elections in Switzerland. Be aware that the PR principle goes beyond the election of the lower house of the federal Parliament. The Federal Council is elected by the federal parliament and is chosen to include representatives of all the main parties and of the different types of cantons. James No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2764 - Release Date: 03/22/10 19:44:00 Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Proportional Representation Systems I'd Support
Google turned up this description of the Swiss electoral system: http://www.democracy-building.info/particularities-switzerlands-proportional-election-system.html I haven't seen this website before. The rest of it looks pretty basic. --Bob Richard James Gilmour wrote: Raph Frank > Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 10:08 AM On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 12:08 AM, James Gilmour wrote: In the (much) more complicated Swiss system, the "apparentenement" is determined by each individual voter. Do you have a link to the method that they use? Is it just open party list? Raph, in a word, no. I'm afraid you'll have to do your own searching. You'll probably find the documents are in German, French, Italian and Romanche, the four official languages of Switzerland. My info was taken from Enid Lakeman's book, fourth edition 1974: "How Democracies Vote". Fortunately for me, that is written in English. With regard to the "Conseil National" (the lower house of the Swiss Federal Parliament), she says each elector has as many votes are there are seats to be filled in each "electoral direct" = one Canton or one-half Canton. In 1967 there were four 1-member electoral districts and the others returned between 2 and 35 members each (total seats = 200). Voters may distribute their votes among all the candidates nominated, freely across party lists, and cumulate two votes, but not more, on any candidate. The votes in each list (or combination of allied lists) are totalled and the seats allocated to parties (or combinations of parties) in proportion to those totals. The allocated seats are filled by candidates in order of the numbers of votes received. There are almost certainly differences from this federal system in the arrangements and counting rules for Cantonal and local government elections in Switzerland. Be aware that the PR principle goes beyond the election of the lower house of the federal Parliament. The Federal Council is elected by the federal parliament and is chosen to include representatives of all the main parties and of the different types of cantons. James No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.791 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2764 - Release Date: 03/22/10 19:44:00 Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info -- Bob Richard Executive Vice President Californians for Electoral Reform PO Box 235 Kentfield, CA 94914-0235 415-256-9393 http://www.cfer.org Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Proportional Representation Systems I'd Support
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Bob Richard wrote: > Google turned up this description of the Swiss electoral system: > > http://www.democracy-building.info/particularities-switzerlands-proportional-election-system.html Thanks. So, from my read, it is party list, but with cumulative voting to decide which candidates in each party win. However, you can only give a maximum vote of 2 to any one candidate. Voters can start with a recommended list from a party. They can cancel one or more candidates from the party's list. If they do that, they can give those votes to other candidates (including double for one candidate). Also, there is no requirement that you vote all your cumulative votes for candidates from the same party. It is like a cumulative voting version of MMP, but there is no mechanism for a candidate to win without being a member of a party. Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] Condorcet How?
On Mar 23, 2010, at 9:01 AM, Terry Bouricius wrote: Robert, Two corrections... always happy to correct my misconceptions. Bills to use IRV for certain statewide elections have been introduced in Vermont in every session since 1998, and it was passed by the Vermont House and Senate a few years ago. It would require IRV for U.S. House and Senate elections. That bill, however was vetoed by the Republican governor. yeah, i kinda remember that. i remember Douglas saying something about IRV, i didn't realize that he was vetoing a bill. The Secretary of State planned to conduct the statewide IRV tally (if the initial first choice totals showed no majority winner), by having the sheriffs transport the sealed ballot bags to regional count centers, and having the IRV tally done by hand. it still has to be tallied centrally in order for the ballots to be transferred to different piles between IRV rounds. i can't imagine a statewide election having ballots tallied by hand (even a small state like Vermont). if it's only 3 candidates and they don't deal with Write-in, the only useful thing they can do at *any* decentralized counting venue is separate the ballots into 9 piles from which they can propagate those numbers up to the central venue. if it's 4 candidates, it's 40 piles. Since the bill, as passed, actually used a top-two contingent system (only the top two initial candidates would advance), the tally would be relatively easy. so the regional venues would report 1st-choice tallies and *wait* for the central counting venue to indicate who the top two vote getters are? then the regional venues do a pairwize tally between the two? is that how it would be done? that's possible, but it requires a two- way communication and a deferred counting action later in the evening of Election Day. it's the 21st century, secure two-way communication within government located at different places is possible. but i can see why it's more comfortable for some that the precincts (or towns) can tally up their subtotals, report it upstream to the central venue while simultaneously publishing that data publicly for media and campaign interests to independently verify election outcomes. the precincts do one counting operation, report their results, securely transmit sealed ballot bags to wherever (or store them), but need not return for any other counting *unless* there is a recount or manual verification of ballots. you've been reported as saying (and i think you said it to me at the Dobra Tea house) that political capital and issue education effort should not be spent on Condorcet because it isn't already in use in governmental elections like IRV is. (kinda like betting on the winning horse, regardless if another horse is more deserving.) but that argument could not have been used when IRV was *first* introduced with Preferential Voting to the first government that adopted it. at that time, neither IRV nor Condorcet had a track record in government. do you know *why* was the decision made then to put all of the chips on IRV rather than putting some investment in selling Condorcet with the ranked ballot? i have never understood that. is it because of the RRoO? is that why IRV (under whatever name) was first plugged for government elections in multiparty environments? however it happened, i think that was where the sad mistake was made. -- r b-j r...@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
[EM] A turd by any other name
Someone needs to tell Thomas Friedman that "Alternative Voting" (IRV) isn't all it's claimed to be. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/opinion/24friedman.html Also apparently "Larry Diamond, a Stanford University democracy expert" (as cited by Friedman), who sounds like probably a smart and nice guy who mostly specializes in growing new democracies around the world, and that's great, but for all the international cultural issues he's probably dealt with maybe we could help him out a little with this one little detail. If you want to get people started out right with the best methods we know of right now, IRV ain't it. I posted this to the NYT comments section. dunno if the moderators will accept it. """ Friedman and Larry Diamond need an adjustment on a point of election theory. "Alternative Voting", also known as "Instant Runoff Voting", is actually a pretty bad reform only barely better than the current system. Burlington VT enacted IRV for their mayoral elections but in 2009 on only the second time they used it the system got the wrong answer and elected the wrong person. A year later they repealed IRV. "Virtual Round Robin" elections, often known as Condorcet's Method, don't have that flaw and are just as easy or easier to implement than IRV. A few people have latched onto IRV and promoted it a lot, perhaps somewhat staking their reputations on it now, but really for the same amount of work we could have much better reforms. """ Brian Olson http://bolson.org/ Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
