Re: [EM] Historic opportunity in Arizona for Approval Voting

[Andy Jennings]

Abd,

When applied to cities with partisan primaries, the bill is not even clear:

1) Does it mean that only two candidates advance (the two with the most
votes from any party even though the party primaries had different numbers
of voters)?

2) Does it mean the top two from each party advance to the general?

You could probably argue that it's up to the city to decide between those
systems.  Is either one a good system?  I don't know.

I would favor your amendment: use AV in all party primaries, top one from
each party goes to the general, if we also mandate AV in the general
election.

BUT, we are only talking about one city here (who won't necessarily even
want approval) and we have much to lose by inserting this amendment.  If we
say anything about partisan elections, then we awaken all of the partisan
sensibilities in all of the legislators (and the governor).  I don't think
we want to risk it.

~ Andy


On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax 
wrote:

> At 11:52 PM 3/17/2013, Andy Jennings wrote:
>
>> Abd,
>>
>> Thanks for your support.
>>
>>
>> Municipalities in Arizona have great flexibility in choosing their own
>> voting systems.
>>
>>
>> I wouldn't say that municipalities have great flexibility in choosing
>> their own voting systems.  That's why we need this bill.
>>
>
> Okay. Home rule municipalities may have some flexibility. And how much, I
> don't know. What I know is "some." Tucson demonstrated that.
>
>
>  In particular, Arizona statute says if there is one winner then the
>> ballot verbiage must say "Vote for no more than 1".  The way I see it, they
>> were just trying to standardize ballot language for the state and (since
>> all they knew was plurality) they inadvertently restricted us to either
>> single-shot plurality or plurality with a plurality primary.  Since the
>> constitution mandates a primary, that leaves us with either segregated
>> primaries or jungle primaries.
>>
>
> Combine this with partisan/no-partisan ballots, i.e, party designation,
> then the two sane choices are segregated primaries (by party), or unified
> nonpartisan primaries. In any case, then, using Approval in the primaries
> is a major step foward.
>
> Approval in party primaries, though, could use Approval. Could a city, as
> well, hold, in addition to party primaries, hold an open primary for all
> candidates who choose not to affiliate with the party primaries?
>
> The problem I'm seeing is that HB2518 appears to mandate two candidates to
> go to the general election. That doesn't work with party primaries. A
> partisan primary should choose one candidate. The Bill calls the second
> election a "Runoff," as one alternate name. But it explicitly excludes any
> consideration of "majority."
>
> Now, from an election methods perspective, with an Approval election, this
> is actually spectacular. The design of the system, with the primary being
> held early, i.e., not held with the general election, and with, then, the
> final election being held as a general election, with generally higher
> turnout, addresses some objections to Approval Voting, i.e,. multiple
> approval majorities and therefore failure of some definitions of the
> majority criterion.
>
>
>  (The courts have ruled that cities, if they want, can implement a rule
>> that avoids the runoff if someone gets a majority in the jungle primary.)
>>
>
> What I'd recommend is that cities begin with the process in the Bill, and
> study results. It is possible to extrapolate margins in the runoff from
> those in the primary, and this is especially true with nonpartisan
> elections. However, the cost of adding and canvassing an additional runoff
> election in the general election is relatively small. It's really just
> another question on the ballot.
>
> The big issue is turnout. However, turnout can cut both ways. It rewards
> motivation, which is probably a good thing.
>
> Classically, advanced voting systems cause candidate numbers to increase.
> That appears to have happened in San Francisco. It's particularly true with
> nonpartisan elections, if people can run at low cost.
>
> As to the problem of what the election law says -- I haven't read the
> entire code, just large chunks of it -- there is a *very* advanced system
> that vote-for-one works fine with, Asset. But we are focusing on Approval,
> one small step, Count All the Votes.
>
> And the next refinement would be to allow ranking on the ballot, which
> allows, then, a series of advanced canvassing techniques.
>
> By the way, if a city has an accumulated record, with the Approval
> two-ballot system, there is one majority condition which really could be
> with total safety used to determine the result from the primary: where the
> absolute approval number for the winner exceeds half of the high-normal
> turnout for the general election. That would kill the participation
> problem. My guess is that better than this could be done.
>
> But there is great value in that second election

Re: [EM] Historic opportunity in Arizona for Approval Voting

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 11:52 PM 3/17/2013, Andy Jennings wrote:

Abd,

Thanks for your support.


Municipalities in Arizona have great flexibility in choosing their 
own voting systems.



I wouldn't say that municipalities have great flexibility in 
choosing their own voting systems.  That's why we need this bill.


Okay. Home rule municipalities may have some flexibility. And how 
much, I don't know. What I know is "some." Tucson demonstrated that.


In particular, Arizona statute says if there is one winner then the 
ballot verbiage must say "Vote for no more than 1".  The way I see 
it, they were just trying to standardize ballot language for the 
state and (since all they knew was plurality) they inadvertently 
restricted us to either single-shot plurality or plurality with a 
plurality primary.  Since the constitution mandates a primary, that 
leaves us with either segregated primaries or jungle primaries.


Combine this with partisan/no-partisan ballots, i.e, party 
designation, then the two sane choices are segregated primaries (by 
party), or unified nonpartisan primaries. In any case, then, using 
Approval in the primaries is a major step foward.


Approval in party primaries, though, could use Approval. Could a 
city, as well, hold, in addition to party primaries, hold an open 
primary for all candidates who choose not to affiliate with the party 
primaries?


The problem I'm seeing is that HB2518 appears to mandate two 
candidates to go to the general election. That doesn't work with 
party primaries. A partisan primary should choose one candidate. The 
Bill calls the second election a "Runoff," as one alternate name. But 
it explicitly excludes any consideration of "majority."


Now, from an election methods perspective, with an Approval election, 
this is actually spectacular. The design of the system, with the 
primary being held early, i.e., not held with the general election, 
and with, then, the final election being held as a general election, 
with generally higher turnout, addresses some objections to Approval 
Voting, i.e,. multiple approval majorities and therefore failure of 
some definitions of the majority criterion.


(The courts have ruled that cities, if they want, can implement a 
rule that avoids the runoff if someone gets a majority in the jungle primary.)


What I'd recommend is that cities begin with the process in the Bill, 
and study results. It is possible to extrapolate margins in the 
runoff from those in the primary, and this is especially true with 
nonpartisan elections. However, the cost of adding and canvassing an 
additional runoff election in the general election is relatively 
small. It's really just another question on the ballot.


The big issue is turnout. However, turnout can cut both ways. It 
rewards motivation, which is probably a good thing.


Classically, advanced voting systems cause candidate numbers to 
increase. That appears to have happened in San Francisco. It's 
particularly true with nonpartisan elections, if people can run at low cost.


As to the problem of what the election law says -- I haven't read the 
entire code, just large chunks of it -- there is a *very* advanced 
system that vote-for-one works fine with, Asset. But we are focusing 
on Approval, one small step, Count All the Votes.


And the next refinement would be to allow ranking on the ballot, 
which allows, then, a series of advanced canvassing techniques.


By the way, if a city has an accumulated record, with the Approval 
two-ballot system, there is one majority condition which really could 
be with total safety used to determine the result from the primary: 
where the absolute approval number for the winner exceeds half of the 
high-normal turnout for the general election. That would kill the 
participation problem. My guess is that better than this could be done.


But there is great value in that second election, there is media 
focus on two candidates, instead of what could be many. That's a 
reason why Robert's Rules of Order objects to IRV (and all 
deterministic preferential voting systems).


That's the only statute I know of in AZ law that prohibits approval 
voting.  Though there may be others.  HB2518 expressly allows 
approval voting, thus overriding any other inadvertent prohibitions.


And says so.


5. The passage of this bill in the Arizona House is the best news 
I've seen *ever* as to U.S. voting systems.



Thanks.  Maybe I'm just downplaying the accomplishment here, but the 
way I understand it there are already hundreds (thousands) of home 
rule cities around the US that could enact approval voting with an 
ordinance.  We're just trying to catch AZ up to where these "home 
rule" cities already are.


Right. But it's much more than that, as you go on to state.

But it is movement, hopefully it would be momentum to go to cities 
and say, "The legislature just allowed this.  You can try it."


Right. Note that IRV is also prohibited by that language.

The language was overspec

Re: [EM] Historic opportunity in Arizona for Approval Voting

[Andy Jennings]

Abd,

Thanks for your support.


> Municipalities in Arizona have great flexibility in choosing their own
> voting systems.


I wouldn't say that municipalities have great flexibility in choosing their
own voting systems.  That's why we need this bill.

In particular, Arizona statute says if there is one winner then the ballot
verbiage must say "Vote for no more than 1".  The way I see it, they were
just trying to standardize ballot language for the state and (since all
they knew was plurality) they inadvertently restricted us to either
single-shot plurality or plurality with a plurality primary.  Since the
constitution mandates a primary, that leaves us with either segregated
primaries or jungle primaries.

(The courts have ruled that cities, if they want, can implement a rule that
avoids the runoff if someone gets a majority in the jungle primary.)

That's the only statute I know of in AZ law that prohibits approval voting.
 Though there may be others.  HB2518 expressly allows approval voting, thus
overriding any other inadvertent prohibitions.

5. The passage of this bill in the Arizona House is the best news I've seen
> *ever* as to U.S. voting systems.
>

Thanks.  Maybe I'm just downplaying the accomplishment here, but the way I
understand it there are already hundreds (thousands) of home rule cities
around the US that could enact approval voting with an ordinance.  We're
just trying to catch AZ up to where these "home rule" cities already are.

But it is movement, hopefully it would be momentum to go to cities and say,
"The legislature just allowed this.  You can try it."

~ Andy

Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info

[EM] Historic opportunity in Arizona for Approval Voting

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

Subject was: Re: [EM] Historical perspective about FairVote organization

At 12:32 PM 3/17/2013, Richard Fobes wrote:

I agree that using better ballots and better vote-counting methods 
in real situation -- using real data -- is essential for making real progress.


A very unusual opportunity for voting system reform has recently presented.

The Arizona House of Representatives just passed HB2518, which 
provides an approval voting method for use in municipalities which 
choose to adopt it.


For background, all Arizona municipalities but one hold nonpartisan 
elections. The exception is Tucson, which holds party primaries and 
then partisan elections. (A "partisan election" has the candidate's 
party affiliations on the ballot, and, also, provides for ballot 
placement for parties, based on petitions and continued election perfomance.)


The measure allows voters in a "primary or first election" to vote 
for more than one candidate and then the top two candidates go on to 
the second election.



1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
2 Section 1. Title 16, chapter 4, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended
3 by adding article 8.2, to read:
4 ARTICLE 8.2. OPTIONAL CITY AND TOWN APPROVAL VOTING
5 16-559. City and town approval voting; requirements
6 A. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER STATUTE, A CITY OR TOWN IN THIS STATE MAY
7 BY ORDINANCE ESTABLISH AND USE A SYSTEM OF APPROVAL VOTING IN THAT CITY'S OR
8 TOWN'S PRIMARY OR FIRST ELECTION. AN APPROVAL VOTING SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDE
9 FOR THE FOLLOWING:
10 1. THE VOTER IN THE PRIMARY OR FIRST ELECTION SHALL BE PERMITTED TO
11 VOTE FOR AS MANY CANDIDATES FOR A SINGLE OFFICE AS THE VOTER CHOOSES TO
12 APPROVE.
13 2. THE TWO CANDIDATES WHO RECEIVE THE HIGHEST AND SECOND HIGHEST
14 NUMBER OF VOTES IN THE PRIMARY OR FIRST ELECTION SHALL ADVANCE TO 
THE GENERAL

15 OR RUNOFF ELECTION FOR THAT CITY OR TOWN WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER ANY ONE
16 CANDIDATE HAS RECEIVED A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST FOR THAT OFFICE.
17 3. THE BALLOT AND ALL OTHER VOTING MATERIALS SHALL CLEARLY INDICATE
18 THAT THE VOTER MAY VOTE FOR AS MANY CANDIDATES IN THAT ELECTION 
AS THE VOTER
19 CHOOSES, AND THAT THE CANDIDATES WHO RECEIVE THE TWO HIGHEST 
NUMBER OF VOTES

20 SHALL ADVANCE TO THE GENERAL OR RUNOFF ELECTION.
21 B. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS ARTICLE, CITY AND TOWN
22 APPROVAL VOTING ELECTIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
23 PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 8 OF THIS CHAPTER.
24 16-559.01. Approval voting; charter; ordinance
25 THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT REQUIRE A CITY OR TOWN TO ADOPT AN APPROVAL
26 VOTING SYSTEM, BUT A CITY OR TOWN MAY AMEND ITS CHARTER IF 
REQUIRED FOR THAT
27 CITY OR TOWN TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT AN APPROVAL 
VOTING SYSTEM AS

28 PRESCRIBED BY THIS ARTICLE.


Municipalities in Arizona have great flexibility in choosing their 
own voting systems. I have looked at four cities in Arizona, and I 
have found two systems in use. Tucson is the only municipality which 
runs partisan elections.


In Tucson, there is a regular party primary, and the winner of the 
primary advances to the general election. So Tucson runs five 
elections each election cycle.


In all other towns, that I've checked, there is currently top-two 
runoff. It is no easy to check small-town elections, some of those 
may simply be plurality. My experience in small towns is that often 
there is only one candidate anyway


It is possible that municipalities could tweak this, or even do 
something different. Tucson has demonstrated that it can defy the 
state; the legislature attempted to prevent Tucson from holding 
partisan elections, and Tucson won in court.


HB2518 has the support of the majority of the Republican Party in 
Arizona. The vote in the House was, Clay Shentrup's analysis:



Republicans:
Yes: 31
No: 4
Not voting: 1

Democrats:
Yes: 0
No: 22
Not voting: 2

So 86% of Republicans voted yes. So what are prospects in the senate?
http://www.azleg.gov/MemberRoster.asp

17 Republicans
13 Democrats

86% would be 14 Republicans. JUST ENOUGH to pass.


I did more research. This bill was introduced as HB2569 in last 
year's legislature. See
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/electionscience/QTpV0Qr3Tfo/POWiz0m15NcJ 
for coverage of HB2518 committee actions in the 2013 session, and
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/electionscience/QTpV0Qr3Tfo/X9fgzrTPOoEJ 
for the Judiciary Committee in 2012.


Three Democrats approved this bill in the committee vote in 2012 
(which was unanimous, 7-0). Two of them left the legislature, the one 
that remained (Hale), voted in the first committee meeting in 2013, 
No. And then in the second, Yes. And then on the floor, No again.


I have been unable to find any coherent criticism of this bill. What 
was semi-coherent, *one blogger*, I addressed in
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/electionscience/QTpV0Qr3Tfo/eaDRR4WLDAEJ 
(which was written just before the previous two linked posts).


I'd like election