[EM] Craig Carey - entry for your STV contest:

[Instant Runoff Voting supporter]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12/07/00
Dear Craig Carey and the EM list,

     I have an entry for the STV contest. I have added two design features
to STV that have an impact mainly on the runoff part of STV.

     The two features are:
          1) Voters have option to repeat choices:
          2) No elimination of candidates:

Choice Voting(STV) with repeat choices and no elimination:
The modified Choice Voting works as follows:
         a) The voters have optional ranking of candidates, including the
option to repeat the same choice in any mix.
         b) Surplus votes are transferred only to choices that are
different than the candidate with the surplus. Repeat choices of the
surplus candidate are passed over.
         c) After all surplus votes have been transferred, we look at the
ballots of the lowest candidate. Ballots that have a different next choice
than the lowest candidate are transferred to the new choice. Ballots that
have the same next choice as the lowest candidate will stay with the same
candidate. Ballots that have no next choice are exhausted and are removed
from the count.
         d) When the lowest candidate has no ballots that can be
transferred, we go to the next lowest candidate and repeat the above
routine, except for the top candidates, which are equal in number to the
number of seats. We never transfer any votes of a top candidate while he is
a top candidate.
         e) The routine is repeated over and over until there are no longer
any transferable votes in the group of candidates below the top candidates.
         f) The top candidates are the winners.

This modification can also be added to IRV.


Instant Runoff Voting with Repeat Choices:
         a) The voters have optional ranking of candidates, including the
option to repeat the same choice in any mix.
         b) If there is a candidate with a majority of the first choices,
he is the winner and the election is over.
         c) If there is no majority winner, we then look at the ballots of
the lowest candidate, we are looking for any voters that may wish to change
their vote. These votes are transferred to the next choice.
            Ballots that have the same candidate as the next choice, will
stay with the same candidate.
            Ballots that have no next choice are exhausted and are removed
from the count, which means that the majority requirement is lowered
accordingly.
         d) If the transfer of votes results in a candidate with a
majority, he is the winner and the election is over.
         e) If the lowest candidate has no ballots that can be transferred,
we go to the next lowest candidate and repeat the above routine, except for
the top candidate. We never transfer any votes of a candidate while he is
the top candidate.
         f) This routine is repeated over and over until there is a
candidate with a majority or until there are no longer any transferable
votes in the group of candidates below the top candidate. if so, the top
candidate is the winner, even if he does not have a majority.


Advantages of this modification to Choice Voting and Instant Runoff Voting:
     1) Candidates are not eliminated by the system, but they can be
effectually eliminated by the voters if the voters decide to make the next
choice some other candidate, it is up to the voters, as it should be.
     2) When a vote needs to be transferred, there will always be a
candidate to receive the vote.
     3) The total number of votes and/or choices used in the calculations
at any one time will never be greater than the number of voters. This is of
more importance in single-winner elections, in which most methods create
additional votes for the calculations. These additional votes are created
out of the lower choices and may be equal to the number of voters, and
more. (Approval Voting will use as many votes in its calcualations as there
are voters times the number of candidates)
     There are people who will pretend to us that there is some high
intelligence existing in the lower choices and all we need to do is to
accept their creative mathematics that they claim will collect this
intelligence and elect the "CORRECT" candidate.  This is Not True!  There
is very little intelligence in the lower choices. The lion share of the
informed choices will be made in the first choices.
     What is in the lower choices is a higher percentage of choices for the
lowest candidates. This is a built-in mathematical bias that will spot the
lowest candidates and give them a `leg-up', which helps to close the gap
between them and the higher candidates. Sometimes this help is enough to
allow one of the lowest candidates to become the winner.
     The first choices are the closest thing we have to the true intent of
the voters. The lower choices are the reverse of the first choices and it
follows that they are also the reverse of the true intent of the voters. If
the first choices of a three candidate race are as follows:  48A  42B  10C
     The sum of the lower choices will be: 52A  58B  90C.
     I ask you, which set of choices should have the most influence in
deciding the winner?  The first choices of course. This is not rocket
science, it is simple math, any method that mixes a large portion of the
second choices into the calculations with the first choices, is a method
that will reduce the true intent of the voters. No second choices should be
used at the same time with first choices in the calculations, otherwise the
method will reduce the true intent of the voters. Lower choices should only
be used to replace first choices, to allow the voter to change his vote.
     Plain Instant Runoff Voting will never use more votes than the number
of voters, but it eliminates candidates. My Instant Runoff with Repeat
Choices will also never use more votes than the number of voters, and it
does not eliminate candidates.
     It's a question of how strong you feel about elimination vs
non-elimination.
     It's a question of plain Instant Runoff or Instant Runoff with Repeat
Choices.   (no other method need apply - Ha Ha)

Regards, Donald Davison - Host of New Democracy,  www.mich.com/~donald
    To subscribe: Send blank email to:  New Democracy <donald at mich.com>

   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
   |                         Q U O T A T I O N                         |
   |  "Democracy is a beautiful thing,                                 |
   |       except that part about letting just any old yokel vote."    |
   |                            - Age 10                               |
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+