Re: [EM] just to let you know ...
On Jan 6, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Terry Bouricius wrote: > Actually, the opposition to IRV in Burlington is predominantly focused on > the complaint that the plurality leader in the initial tally ended up > losing in the runoff tally. That's stupid enough to get me a bit angry. They see a problem with IRV results. Going back to pick-one voting is sticking their heads in the sand and denying to see the problem. Because we have the full data dump from the rankings ballots we can do analysis and figure out what happened and how IRV was wrong (and how pick-one would have been wrong), but if they take that away then we just won't know again. Problem hidden! I really hope the forces of stupid don't win. Good luck up there guys. If there was going to be a big public meeting, I might even be tempted to drive up from Boston. Even if I didn't get to contribute much I'd be curious to see just how these things play out amongst real Americans who aren election theory wonks. Brian Olson http://bolson.org/ Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] just to let you know ...
plurality leader in the initial tally ended up losing
weak Condorcet compromise in third place
if Burlington had used Condorcet rules ... there would be even more
vociferous calls for repeal
These are all semi-valid concerns in a country that is so used to
plurality winners and single-party governments (winner without lots
of / sufficient amount of of first preference support could be a
"weak" single-party ruler).
I note that also the spoiler effect is a quite well known problem in
the USA and that the 33% plurality winner would have lost also with
the old rules (the probability of electing a Republican might be
bigger with the old rules though). All this together shows that the
discussion and decision making is probably more abut who makes the
best and most convincing claims at correct times than about who makes
the correct and rational claims. There is no one making a rational
summary of all the arguments. The discussion is more likely to hover
around various simple claims (that may well be oversimplified, false,
unclear, intentionally unclear and/or in conflict with each others
just like the already mentioned claims are, no problem).
Many voters may have interest but not sufficient knowledge and time/
interest to draw rational conclusions. Politicians may well drive only
the short term interests of their own party and themselves (instead of
the society as a whole) (big parties usually have even rational
(selfish) reasons). Media may also be mostly interested in short term
juicy stories. And experts too may have mixed interests. I however
note that there is always some tendency to find solutions that are
good in theory and in practice (and tendency to avoid solutions that
have clearly been "proven wrong"). Decision making will go slightly in
that (rational, sensible) direction if all the facts are made known
and especially if clear descriptions and clear justification of them
are available. That means that despite of the demagogic nature of the
discussion also rational argumentation does have a place in the
process. Better to throw the argumentation in although the discussion
and its outcome may not fully follow the intended logic.
Juho
On Jan 7, 2010, at 1:49 AM, Terry Bouricius wrote:
Juho,
Actually, the opposition to IRV in Burlington is predominantly
focused on
the complaint that the plurality leader in the initial tally ended up
losing in the runoff tally. This candidate was actually the Condorcet
LOSER among the top three candidates (though a fringe candidate with
only
35 votes was the technical Condorcet loser). The complaint from those
circulating the IRV repeal petition is that there shouldn't be any
ranked
ballots, and that the plurality winner with 33% of the vote in the
first
round (and the essential Condorcet-loser) should have been declared
elected. There is no momentum toward a Condorcet approach currently. I
haven't heard more than a couple of people in Burlington suggest
that the
actual Condorcet winner should have won, because he was a weak
Condorcet
compromise in third place in the initial tally. I suspect that if
Burlington had used Condorcet rules and the candidate in third place
in
the initial tally had been declared elected, there would be even more
vociferous calls for repeal in favor of plurality or runoffs.
Terry Bouricius
- Original Message -
From: "Juho"
To: "EM Methods"
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: [EM] just to let you know ...
In Burlington at least the arguments for Condorcet should be straight
forward. People are already ok with ranked ballot based voting. Many
of them may feel that in the last election the Condorcet winner should
have won. From this point of view Condorcet is just a small
modification that fixes this problem.
Many voters may support going back to the old system since that would
(at least seem to) fix the problem of failing to elect the ("beats
all") Condorcet winner. It would make sense to make them aware that
there are also other ways to solve the problem (= just fix the
tabulation method).
Juho
On Jan 6, 2010, at 7:47 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
Terry and i agree on many things and I am convinced we have a common
goal: fair elections that represent the will of the electorate and
do not penalize voters for voting non-strategically. and we agree
that the first-past-the-pole (with delayed runoff if no one exceeds
40%) is no good, worse than the IRV that was passed in 2005 and used
twice since.
Terry, we *do* disagree about some things. factually, it is *not*
just Republicans. there are many, many Democrats that have joined
that "One Person, One Vote" group and, Terry, if IRV is repealed
this March, it's gonna be because the number of Democrats on that
side have been underestimated and not taken seriously.
I am against the rep
Re: [EM] just to let you know ...
On Jan 6, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Terry Bouricius wrote: ... because [Montroll] was a weak Condorcet compromise in third place in the initial tally. I suspect that if Burlington had used Condorcet rules and the candidate in third place in the initial tally had been declared elected, there would be even more vociferous calls for repeal in favor of plurality or runoffs. i meant to say, Terry, that this whole issue is *only* about if the Condorcet winner is in the third place. we know that, when it boils down to three, the Condorcet candidate does not get second place in IRV, if the Condorcet candidate goes to the final IRV round, then he/ she wins IRV. so then the two methods don't differ; we can't complain about the other one. but my whole point is that even the "third place by plurality" Condorcet winner should be elected rather than the IRV winner. for the reasons stated in my previous post. and the "vociferous calls" for repeal of Condorcet would be against their enlightened self- interest. but who said that mouth-frothing reactionaries who call themselves "One person, one vote" (i wonder how many bought into the "Death Panels" canard?) will act in their enlightened self-interest rather than their immediate partisan self-interest? but, again Terry, i don't think that it's just Republican Wright supporters that are in the anti-IRV camp. there are quite a few Dems there, too. it might be dangerous to ignore the possibility that there are a number of Dems in that camp. -- r b-j r...@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] just to let you know ...
On Jan 6, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Terry Bouricius wrote: Actually, the opposition to IRV in Burlington is predominantly focused on the complaint that the plurality leader in the initial tally ended up losing in the runoff tally. which we should identify as an unjustified complaint. the whole point is that someone could be the plurality winner but a majority of the electorate are united supporting another candidate against this plurality winner. why (outside of a condorcet cycle) should we ever elect candidate B, when a majority of the voting constituency agree that candidate A is better than candidate B? this is the kind of decision we would make if it were just these two candidates running. why should it be different (reversed) with the introduction of a third candidate C? it's inherent to Condorcet to say that the number of voters who say A>B is not a function of C. if A is ranked higher than B for a specific voter, it remains so no matter where candidate C is ranked relative to A or B. the reason why Kurt Wright lost to Bob Kiss is entirely that more Burlington voters marked their ballots that they preferred Bob over Kurt for mayor. those two facts are equivalent in IRV. but for the final round only. Condorcet asks that question for any hypothetical two-candidate elections. This candidate was actually the Condorcet LOSER among the top three candidates (though a fringe candidate with only 35 votes was the technical Condorcet loser). yeah, but if you don't count Homer "James" Simpson, the only insignificant candidate (the four other candidates were all credible), then independent Dan Smith was the Condorcet loser. actually, all five candidates were quite unambiguously ordered, in a Condorcet manner, as M>K>W>Sm>Si. you could remove any set of candidates and the remaining relative ordering would be unchanged. at least for the 2009 Burlington election with ranked-order ballots. that just seems completely insensitive to irrelevant alternatives. The complaint from those circulating the IRV repeal petition is that there shouldn't be any ranked ballots, and that the plurality winner with 33% of the vote in the first round (and the essential Condorcet-loser) should have been declared elected. how can we say that, Terry, when what result they are calling for in the repeal petition is to return to the previous law (40%+ or delayed runoff)? if the old law applied and people's first IRV choice was their single candidate vote, then the runoff would be between Bob and Kurt. assuming the turnout and relative preferences are identical, Bob beats Kurt. but their hope is that more of them show up for the runoff than their lazy librul opponents. that's the only hope they have of electing a GOP mayor in a town of liberal Democrats and Progs. There is no momentum toward a Condorcet approach currently. i agree with that. but i think it's dumb. one side or the other will lose on the second day in March. either way, that side that loses will prefer Condorcet over what they get as losers. if they think about it. the pro-IRV people would prefer Condorcet over pre-2005 and the anti-IRV people *should* prefer Condorcet over IRV because of what IRV did to them in 2009. the IRV in 2009 penalized Wright voters, more of which preferred Montroll than Kiss by 3 to 1, for not forsaking their favorite candidate. we know that if a few hundred of those W>M>K voters had stayed home, they would have gotten M instead of K. they actually helped elect the candidate they least preferred by voting sincerely for their favorite candidate. that rewards the strategy of "compromising". that is the principle strategy we were seeking to be relieved of in adopting IRV. we wanted to be able to vote for Nader, as a political statement, yet still not support Bush by doing so (or you could say the same for Perot and Clinton, respectively). this is why i think it's dumb. I haven't heard more than a couple of people in Burlington suggest that the actual Condorcet winner should have won, there's a lot of people (587 more than think otherwise) that think that Andy Montroll should have won over Bob Kiss. that's what i heard in March 2009 from how 7541 voters marked their ballots (84% of 7984 cast). i mean, Terry, if we respect the authority of the ballot (which, as an aside, the Supreme Court didn't 12/12/2000) isn't it essentially a tautology that the people are asked if they prefer the Condorcet candidate to any of the other candidates, and that this is more than a couple of people, but the will of the people. isn't the authority of the ballot an axiom for reflecting the will of the people? and if more people people prefer candidate A over candidate B then candidate B should not be elected, no? isn't that what Condorcet essentially says? just as symbols, let's use some common names for
Re: [EM] just to let you know ...
Juho,
Actually, the opposition to IRV in Burlington is predominantly focused on
the complaint that the plurality leader in the initial tally ended up
losing in the runoff tally. This candidate was actually the Condorcet
LOSER among the top three candidates (though a fringe candidate with only
35 votes was the technical Condorcet loser). The complaint from those
circulating the IRV repeal petition is that there shouldn't be any ranked
ballots, and that the plurality winner with 33% of the vote in the first
round (and the essential Condorcet-loser) should have been declared
elected. There is no momentum toward a Condorcet approach currently. I
haven't heard more than a couple of people in Burlington suggest that the
actual Condorcet winner should have won, because he was a weak Condorcet
compromise in third place in the initial tally. I suspect that if
Burlington had used Condorcet rules and the candidate in third place in
the initial tally had been declared elected, there would be even more
vociferous calls for repeal in favor of plurality or runoffs.
Terry Bouricius
- Original Message -
From: "Juho"
To: "EM Methods"
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: [EM] just to let you know ...
In Burlington at least the arguments for Condorcet should be straight
forward. People are already ok with ranked ballot based voting. Many
of them may feel that in the last election the Condorcet winner should
have won. From this point of view Condorcet is just a small
modification that fixes this problem.
Many voters may support going back to the old system since that would
(at least seem to) fix the problem of failing to elect the ("beats
all") Condorcet winner. It would make sense to make them aware that
there are also other ways to solve the problem (= just fix the
tabulation method).
Juho
On Jan 6, 2010, at 7:47 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>
>
> Terry and i agree on many things and I am convinced we have a common
> goal: fair elections that represent the will of the electorate and
> do not penalize voters for voting non-strategically. and we agree
> that the first-past-the-pole (with delayed runoff if no one exceeds
> 40%) is no good, worse than the IRV that was passed in 2005 and used
> twice since.
>
> Terry, we *do* disagree about some things. factually, it is *not*
> just Republicans. there are many, many Democrats that have joined
> that "One Person, One Vote" group and, Terry, if IRV is repealed
> this March, it's gonna be because the number of Democrats on that
> side have been underestimated and not taken seriously.
>
> I am against the repeal. I hope it loses, but only by a whisker.
> If IRV is retained by a great margin, that will reassure IRV
> proponents that there is nothing wrong with it and the pathologies
> will likely be repeated in future elections. but if it survives by
> just a hair, then maybe the IRV proponents will get the message.
> and maybe in 2011 we can replace it with Condorcet.
>
>
> --
>
> r b-j r...@audioimagination.com
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Terry Bouricius" [ter...@burlingtontelecom.net]
> Date: 01/06/2010 10:24
> To: "EM" , "robert bristow-
> johnson"
> Subject: Re: [EM] just to let you know ...
>
> The key fact to understand about the situation in Burlington, is
> that the
> proposal for the repeal of IRV would replace it with a plurality
> system. A
> candidate could win with 40% of the vote. If no candidate reaches 40%
> there would be a runoff election.
>
> Robert Bristow-Johnson and I did a little poking around to see if we
> could
> spark any interest in Condorcet as a better way to go, but the folks
> pushing for repeal of IRV are mainly Republicans who believe that a
> 40%
> plurality rule is their best chance of winning the mayor's office, and
> have no interest in principles of majority, let alone Condorcet
> winners.
>
> Terry Bouricius
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "robert bristow-johnson"
> To: "EM"
> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 11:28 PM
> Subject: [EM] just to let you know ...
>
>
>
> ... that the anti-IRV folks in Burlington Vermont have now officially
> submitted more than sufficient number of signatures to put an IRV
> repeal question on the Town Meeting ballot this coming March.
>
> Both sparks and a little bit of fecal matter is gonna fly in all
> directions now. One of blogs is at http://7d.blogs.com/blurt/2009/12/
> burlington-residents-seek-repeal-of-instant-runoff-voting.html .
>
> Whereas the discussion here is largely academic, in the town of my
> res
Re: [EM] just to let you know ...
One could say that Condorcet has by now been well tested in various
non-governmental elections. Maybe they are credible enough??
There may be some additional problems too. I hope the already existing
procedures of IRV to digitize the ballots and collect that data can be
easily reused (or corresponding ones developed).
Juho
On Jan 7, 2010, at 12:59 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
Juho wrote:
In Burlington at least the arguments for Condorcet should be
straight forward. People are already ok with ranked ballot based
voting. Many of them may feel that in the last election the
Condorcet winner should have won. From this point of view Condorcet
is just a small modification that fixes this problem.
Many voters may support going back to the old system since that
would (at least seem to) fix the problem of failing to elect the
("beats all") Condorcet winner. It would make sense to make them
aware that there are also other ways to solve the problem (= just
fix the tabulation method).
There is another problem. Condorcet is *unknown*. Apart from Nanson
(and perhaps Baldwin, I'm not certain), no Condorcet method has been
used in a government context.
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] just to let you know ...
Juho wrote:
In Burlington at least the arguments for Condorcet should be straight
forward. People are already ok with ranked ballot based voting. Many of
them may feel that in the last election the Condorcet winner should have
won. From this point of view Condorcet is just a small modification that
fixes this problem.
Many voters may support going back to the old system since that would
(at least seem to) fix the problem of failing to elect the ("beats all")
Condorcet winner. It would make sense to make them aware that there are
also other ways to solve the problem (= just fix the tabulation method).
There is another problem. Condorcet is *unknown*. Apart from Nanson (and
perhaps Baldwin, I'm not certain), no Condorcet method has been used in
a government context.
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] just to let you know ...
In Burlington at least the arguments for Condorcet should be straight
forward. People are already ok with ranked ballot based voting. Many
of them may feel that in the last election the Condorcet winner should
have won. From this point of view Condorcet is just a small
modification that fixes this problem.
Many voters may support going back to the old system since that would
(at least seem to) fix the problem of failing to elect the ("beats
all") Condorcet winner. It would make sense to make them aware that
there are also other ways to solve the problem (= just fix the
tabulation method).
Juho
On Jan 6, 2010, at 7:47 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
Terry and i agree on many things and I am convinced we have a common
goal: fair elections that represent the will of the electorate and
do not penalize voters for voting non-strategically. and we agree
that the first-past-the-pole (with delayed runoff if no one exceeds
40%) is no good, worse than the IRV that was passed in 2005 and used
twice since.
Terry, we *do* disagree about some things. factually, it is *not*
just Republicans. there are many, many Democrats that have joined
that "One Person, One Vote" group and, Terry, if IRV is repealed
this March, it's gonna be because the number of Democrats on that
side have been underestimated and not taken seriously.
I am against the repeal. I hope it loses, but only by a whisker.
If IRV is retained by a great margin, that will reassure IRV
proponents that there is nothing wrong with it and the pathologies
will likely be repeated in future elections. but if it survives by
just a hair, then maybe the IRV proponents will get the message.
and maybe in 2011 we can replace it with Condorcet.
--
r b-j r...@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
-Original Message-
From: "Terry Bouricius" [ter...@burlingtontelecom.net]
Date: 01/06/2010 10:24
To: "EM" , "robert bristow-
johnson"
Subject: Re: [EM] just to let you know ...
The key fact to understand about the situation in Burlington, is
that the
proposal for the repeal of IRV would replace it with a plurality
system. A
candidate could win with 40% of the vote. If no candidate reaches 40%
there would be a runoff election.
Robert Bristow-Johnson and I did a little poking around to see if we
could
spark any interest in Condorcet as a better way to go, but the folks
pushing for repeal of IRV are mainly Republicans who believe that a
40%
plurality rule is their best chance of winning the mayor's office, and
have no interest in principles of majority, let alone Condorcet
winners.
Terry Bouricius
- Original Message -
From: "robert bristow-johnson"
To: "EM"
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 11:28 PM
Subject: [EM] just to let you know ...
... that the anti-IRV folks in Burlington Vermont have now officially
submitted more than sufficient number of signatures to put an IRV
repeal question on the Town Meeting ballot this coming March.
Both sparks and a little bit of fecal matter is gonna fly in all
directions now. One of blogs is at http://7d.blogs.com/blurt/2009/12/
burlington-residents-seek-repeal-of-instant-runoff-voting.html .
Whereas the discussion here is largely academic, in the town of my
residence, it's gonna get real.
Feel free to jump in (hopefully with pertinent facts) even if you're
outa town.
--
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
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] just to let you know ...
Terry and i agree on many things and I am convinced we have a common goal: fair elections that represent the will of the electorate and do not penalize voters for voting non-strategically. and we agree that the first-past-the-pole (with delayed runoff if no one exceeds 40%) is no good, worse than the IRV that was passed in 2005 and used twice since. Terry, we *do* disagree about some things. factually, it is *not* just Republicans. there are many, many Democrats that have joined that "One Person, One Vote" group and, Terry, if IRV is repealed this March, it's gonna be because the number of Democrats on that side have been underestimated and not taken seriously. I am against the repeal. I hope it loses, but only by a whisker. If IRV is retained by a great margin, that will reassure IRV proponents that there is nothing wrong with it and the pathologies will likely be repeated in future elections. but if it survives by just a hair, then maybe the IRV proponents will get the message. and maybe in 2011 we can replace it with Condorcet. -- r b-j r...@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge." -Original Message- From: "Terry Bouricius" [ter...@burlingtontelecom.net] Date: 01/06/2010 10:24 To: "EM" , "robert bristow-johnson" Subject: Re: [EM] just to let you know ... The key fact to understand about the situation in Burlington, is that the proposal for the repeal of IRV would replace it with a plurality system. A candidate could win with 40% of the vote. If no candidate reaches 40% there would be a runoff election. Robert Bristow-Johnson and I did a little poking around to see if we could spark any interest in Condorcet as a better way to go, but the folks pushing for repeal of IRV are mainly Republicans who believe that a 40% plurality rule is their best chance of winning the mayor's office, and have no interest in principles of majority, let alone Condorcet winners. Terry Bouricius - Original Message - From: "robert bristow-johnson" To: "EM" Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 11:28 PM Subject: [EM] just to let you know ... ... that the anti-IRV folks in Burlington Vermont have now officially submitted more than sufficient number of signatures to put an IRV repeal question on the Town Meeting ballot this coming March. Both sparks and a little bit of fecal matter is gonna fly in all directions now. One of blogs is at http://7d.blogs.com/blurt/2009/12/ burlington-residents-seek-repeal-of-instant-runoff-voting.html . Whereas the discussion here is largely academic, in the town of my residence, it's gonna get real. Feel free to jump in (hopefully with pertinent facts) even if you're outa town. -- 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] just to let you know ...
The key fact to understand about the situation in Burlington, is that the proposal for the repeal of IRV would replace it with a plurality system. A candidate could win with 40% of the vote. If no candidate reaches 40% there would be a runoff election. Robert Bristow-Johnson and I did a little poking around to see if we could spark any interest in Condorcet as a better way to go, but the folks pushing for repeal of IRV are mainly Republicans who believe that a 40% plurality rule is their best chance of winning the mayor's office, and have no interest in principles of majority, let alone Condorcet winners. Terry Bouricius - Original Message - From: "robert bristow-johnson" To: "EM" Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 11:28 PM Subject: [EM] just to let you know ... ... that the anti-IRV folks in Burlington Vermont have now officially submitted more than sufficient number of signatures to put an IRV repeal question on the Town Meeting ballot this coming March. Both sparks and a little bit of fecal matter is gonna fly in all directions now. One of blogs is at http://7d.blogs.com/blurt/2009/12/ burlington-residents-seek-repeal-of-instant-runoff-voting.html . Whereas the discussion here is largely academic, in the town of my residence, it's gonna get real. Feel free to jump in (hopefully with pertinent facts) even if you're outa town. -- 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
