[EM] IRV Revisited. Easy Implementation of Plurality's Optimal Strategy.
1. Instant Runoff Revisited: Getting a better voting system enacted, for national office, will be very difficult, and maybe impossible. The problem is that of course the existing legislators, and their bribers, aren't motivated to replace the voting system that keeps them in power. If there is a voting system that can be enacted at national level, it would be Approval. But _any_ voting system reform might be impossible, without electing new President and Congress. The Greens Party U.S. (GPUS) is by far the most winnable party that offers genuine progressive reform and improvement. Their platform includes voting-system reform. Their platform offers to replace Plurality with Instant-Runoff (IRV). Of course some of us have discussed IRV's problems. Its worst ones include FBC failure, and count-fraud-vulnerability, due to not being precinct-summable. But, because, most likely, the only way that we're ever going to get a better voting system for national office will be by electing better Congress and President, and because the Greens are the most winnable progressive party, and because IRV is the new voting system that the Greens offer to enact, then I suggest that IRV deserves another look. Let's look at its two significant problems: FBC failure, and count-fraud-vulnerability due to not being precinct-summable: 1a) FBC failure: I've been rejecting every voting system that fails FBC. But, because of what I said a few paragraphs back, let's take a closer look at IRV's FBC failure: Any electorate that can elect the Greens in a Plurality election isn't going to have any trouble using IRV. Such an electorate must have already become able to not be unduly influenced by Plurality's FBC failure. An electorate that can elect the Greens in a Plurality election is competent enough to get by without FBC. u/a strategy for FBC: Rank the acceptable candidates in order of (some measure of, or feel for) winnability. As for the unacceptables, it doesn't really matter how you rank them, because, your vote won't reach them unless the acceptables have all been eliminated. I don't know how to rank the unacceptables in a non-0-info u/a election, but it doesn't matter. In a 0-info election, rank all the candidates in sincere order of preference. Approval and IRV are the methods that meet the 0-Info Sincerity Criterion. 1b) IRV's lack of precinct-summability, and resulting count-fraud vulnerability: For one thing, we could expect that, in a Green government, there wouldn't be official count-fraud. Of course there could still be individuals motivated to perpetrate count-fraud. But a national IRV hand-count could be done in a way that wouldn't be seriously or particularly count-fraud-vulnerable: Each precinct, around the country, does a handcount of the candidates' top-counts, and sends them in to the national count headquarters, via some secure sending method. Each precinct's handcount, and the national handcount, would be conducted and observed by representatives of a variety of parties all across the political spectrum. Each participating party would also televise the count, at the precincts, and in the national handcount, with _its own_ video camera and sound-recorder. Likewise, each participating party would have its own video camera, and maybe its own lock, protecting the stored ballots and count records. The natiional count headquarters handcounts those top-totals, to determine who is eliminated. The information about the eliminated candidate is sent to the local precincts, and is also announced in the ongoing report-broadcast. Each precinct crosses that eliminated candidate's name out from the rankings, and again does a handcount of the candidates' top-counts, and sends them to national headquarters. ...and so on. The precincts would keep their ballots securely. The paper ballots would ideally be printed out from voting machines. The voter would look at his/her printed-out ballot, to ensure that it's as s/he wants it. The national count headquarters would record each precinct top-count that it receives, from each precinct, at each stage. That would be recorded on paper, and securely guarded. The national count headquarters would announce the candidates' total top-counts, in the ongoing report-broadcast, at each stage of the count. People in the local precincts could examine the records of the top-counts nationally-recorded from their precinct. There's probably a way that the above count method could be done securely. I much prefer Approval's maximally simple handcount. I prefer Approval's compliance with FBC, and the various consistency criteria. But IRV would do just fine, for an electorate competent enough to elect the Greens with Plurality. 1c) Regarding IRV's properties: Aside from IRV's FBC failure, and its lack of precinct summability, and its count that's more complicated than an Approval count--problems that have already been dealt with in this message, IRV's has some very good properti
Re: [EM] IRV Revisited. Easy Implementation of Plurality's Optimal Strategy.
On 11/10/2012 9:18 AM, Michael Ossipoff wrote: If there is a voting system that can be enacted at national level, = = = = = [Ken B.] Unless something's changed recently, there's no national voting system now and never has been in the USA. Voting methods and election rules are set at the state and local level. You'd need an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to create a national voting system, wouldn't you? - Ken Bearman, Minneapolis MN Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] IRV Revisited. Easy Implementation of Plurality's Optimal Strategy.
I have several reactions to this thread. 1. I am sympathetic to the idea that we shouldn't dismiss IRV out-of-hand simply because it has inferior properties. Its better momentum is a force to be reckoned with. 2. I am also very supportive of discussing activist tactics in general. Inevitably, that will involve breaking the nonpartisan fiction. For instance, I consider myself a progressive, and while I can respectfully suggest tactics to my voting-reform allies who are libertarian or centrist, it is reasonable for me to spend more attention on what I myself can do as a progressive, and to talk more about the Greens and Democrats than about the Libertarians, Republicans, and Tea Party. 3. However, there's a big difference between tactical activist thinking, and magical "assume a can opener" thinking. Any idea that starts with "first we elect a significant Green caucus to congress..." or "Since greens are immune to corruption and hate gerrymandering..." is a dead end. So, from that perspective, what do I think the important tactics are? Priority one is to grow the movement. There are maybe 50 people active on this list; and perhaps a few hundred people involved in FairVote nationwide. Even if sympathizers and supporters are ten times that, that's still way too small and/or diffuse a group to win even the smallest battle. One particular focus should be to find large contributors. For instance, Sergey Brin recently posted a rant about partisanship, and Ka-Ping Yee works at google.org; if we could make Google into a hotbed of voting reform advocacy, that would be a very powerful ally. Priority two is to win federal, and more-importantly state, elected officials to our cause. That means engaging in electoral politics, principally at the primary stage. In other words: we cannot sit and dream about a third-party tomorrow, we must also find candidates and movements we can honestly support within the two parties. For me, a progressive, that means working inside the Democratic party. For libertarians, that probably means the Republicans. For Bloomberg technocrat types... well, from my perspective, you're a lot closer to the Democrats, but I'll let you decide that. Whichever party it is: find people you can honestly support, and help them win primaries and then general elections. That doesn't mean you have to abandon your third party party-building work; but it does mean being willing to work with good people inside a major party even if you believe that the larger part of that party is corrupt and counterproductive. Priorities one and two lay the groundwork for priority three: actual implementations of voting reform. This does not take a constitutional amendment. Most of the work would be on a municipal or state level. Find out who your city council and state legislators are. Get 5 friends in your district to work together to lobby them. Write letters, set up appointments if you can. If you find that they're sympathetic, don't hesitate to help them fundraise. If you find they're not, look for an opponent for them who is and who could credibly win the district. There is also a bit of important work at the federal level; for instance, Congress could change the law which forbids PR for the house of representative, or explicitly interpret the constitutions Guaranty Clause in a way that favors approval voting by giving citizens and/or citizen groups standing to challenge voting laws that reduce effective participation (as plurality does when it throws away overvotes). But principally, the important battles are at the municipal or state level. Where does IRV and FairVote fit into this? Obviously, your answer to that will depend on how you feel about IRV. But even if you think that IRV's disadvantages versus plurality outweigh its advantages, I think it's worth working with FairVote on PR. And if, like me, you think that it is a small step up from plurality, then... well I won't tell you what to do, but I spend most of my voting-reform energy on Approval, but try not to completely burn my bridges with FairVote, no matter how annoying or wrong I often find them. So, Rob Richie, if you're reading this: I will always endorse any viable proposal to replace plurality with IRV, and at all times try to deflect energy spent infighting between reform proposals towards opposing plurality, and for at least the 10th time I personally and publicly invite you to start doing the same. Jameson 2012/11/10 Ken B > On 11/10/2012 9:18 AM, Michael Ossipoff wrote: > >> If there is a voting system that can be enacted at national level, >> > = = = = = > [Ken B.] Unless something's changed recently, there's no national voting > system now and never has been in the USA. Voting methods and election > rules are set at the state and local level. > > You'd need an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to create a national > voting system, wouldn't you? > > - Ken Bearman, Minneapolis MN > > > > Election-Methods mailing list - see http:/
