[EM] Guarding the Instant Runoff movement (Our Mike is mentioned)

[Instant Runoff Voting supporter]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12/10/00
Greetings List,
      In this drive for Instant Runoff Voting(IRV), you should be aware
that there are about twenty or thirty other methods, the so called
alternative methods. Every once in awhile a member of the IRV movement will
think: "I really do want to be promoting the best system." (we all do)
      Then they may even want us to stop and discuss the other methods.
Jameson Quinn is one of these persons (he wants to discuss).  Discussions
of the other methods are endless discussions - discussions adinfinitum.
      While we should avoid the endless discussions, of more importance, we
all should know that most of these other methods have a core flaw.
      What follows are my comments, which I hope will make Jameson and you
beware the endless discussions and aware of this core flaw, so you both
will understand and be prepared to guard our movement.

Regards, Donald Davison

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11/29/00
A Letter to Jameson Quinn:

Jameson: I understand that this [instantrunoff] list's primary purpose is
to organize for activism around IRV.

Donald: Yes, you are correct, and thank you for reminding us of that
important point.

Jameson:  However, it cannot help but serve also as a means of
self-education, both on the details and ramifications of IRV, and on the
mechanics of activism and mailing lists.

Donald: I think I agree, but I want to first see were you are going with
this line of reasoning.

Jameson:  It would be very unhealthy to restrict the scope of discussion to
only pro-IRV messages.

Donald:  Sorry, but No!  Instead, it would be very unhealthy for the
instantrunoff list to increase the scope to include the Bottom Methods, the
so called alternative methods - doing so would open up a can of worms.
         I refer to these methods as the Bottom Methods for a very good
reason, it is because they give the bottom candidates a `leg up' in the
election. These Bottom Methods do the same as if we were to spot the lowest
candidates with an undue handicap of artifical advantage beyond fairness.
For that reason these methods are objectionable. Some supporters of the
lowest candidates want these Bottom Methods installed because; how else are
their candidates ever going to be elected?

Jameson:  Of course, it would also defeat the purpose of this list if
rancorous debate between voting systems drowned out the focused activism.

Donald: I agree, we must avoid that problem. Allow me to give everyone some
history. About four or five years ago, the Center for Voting and
Democracy(CVD) started a list called Elections Reform, but the list got
infected by a small band of Bottom Method Supporters, the BMS people. They
turned the list into a cesspool of Rancorous Debate about the Bottom
Methods, methods like Approval, Condorcet, etc, you name it, they debated
it. They were told to leave the list. They did leave and proceeded to get
their own list, which is called the Election Methods(EM) list. It has been
five years now and they are still debating whatever.  Anyway, the point is:
If we learn from history we will not be forced to repeat history. (Some
famous person first said something like that)

Jameson: Therefore, I recommend a policy of partial censorship. Allow some
percentage (say 15-25%) of list traffic to be devoted to discussion of
voting systems, and only censor the messages above that limit.

Donald:  No Way!  Fifteen percent rancorous debate is the same as one
hundred percent rancorous debate. The lack of difference is the same as the
lack of difference between a woman being pregnant or being slighly
pregnant, it's all the same.

Jameson:  There is all the difference in the world between partial
censorship and a blackout. I have heard from at least 4 different voting
system enthusiasts that they have been offended by what they perceive as
the CVD's policy of simply not discussing alternatives to IRV.

Donald:  So they are offended, so what? That is not your problem, it is
their problem. They need to learn that this is not a perfect world, people
don't always do what we would like them to do. Besides, what's so special
about these people. These are the same type of persons who would have us
repeat history.  CVD is wise not to discuss alternaties to IRV. Why should
they? CVD has no obligation to carry the banner for these so called "Voting
System Enthusiasts"(a misnomer). You call them enthusiasts, I call them
confidence men, for that is what they do, they are trying to con the CVD
and you into supporting objectionable election methods.
         They should get off their butts and beat their own drum. No one is
stopping them from forming their own organization to promote whatever
method of their choice. Why should others do their work?
         If a group of people who raise roses decided to form a club for
the purpose of advancing the growing of roses, they would not be required
to entertain any speaker talking about any other flower, and this would not
be censorship. Freedom of speech also includes the freedom not to listen,
not to be a captive audience. Anyone who is interested in some other
flower, or in some other election method, is free to join some other flower
club or some other election method group or list.

Jameson:  One person was so angered he even stooped to name-calling.

Donald:  I know someone like that. Maybe your person and my someone are the
same person. Mike Ossipoff is the name of my someone, what is the name of
your nasty person?  MikeO is not nasty all the time, but he is always
willing to bad mouth IRV, CVD, Rob Richie, and any and all who does not
agree with his agenda. He is a BMS person, always pushing one or another of
the Bottom Methods. (He's also an old war horse always ready to do battle)

Jameson:  I was pointing out advantages of IRV over approval voting and he
said "that's what the CVD irvies all say."

Donald:  Your nasty person is Mike Ossipoff. I recognize his signature
expression in the quote you gave. MikeO is the only person that uses the
expression: "IRVies", besides, MikeO's current method of choice is Approval
Voting. You touched on a raw nerve when you suggested IRV to be better than
Approval Voting. (how dare you)
         Yes, MikeO is quick to stoop to name calling - get use to it if
you are going to discuss with him, he will even call you names. I suspect
he has already done so.

Jameson:  It is one thing to try to keep things simple when writing
editorials for general consumption; but on this list, among people who are
already well-versed in the advantages of IRV over plurality voting,
discussion _must_ be more open or you will isolate and fractionate yourself
more than any flamewar could. To this purpose, I suggest that a CVD member
open the discussion with a defense of IRV as superior (either theoretically
or practically) to other single-winner voting systems.

Donald:  Sorry, No Can Do!  We have the right to plot a course and stay the
course. If you wish to go another way you are free to go your way, but some
of us do not want to go with you, because we've been there, we've done
that. For five years I have been sparing on and off with MikeO and/or his
BMS cronies. (How time flies when you're having fun)
       I now know for sure that Instant Runoff Voting is the best method,
but I also know what you are thinking. If there is a best method out there
somewhere, you want to promote this best method. I know you do and I have
some good news that will save you five years. You will be promoting the
best single winner system when you promote Instant Runoff Voting.
     One time, I suggested to the BMS people that they should form their
own organization to rival CVD, but they are not up to doing that. They like
to think of themselves as being the `Brains' and others are expected to do
the legwork. Note: Currently MikeO is trying to form an organization to
stop Instant Runoff but he is having trouble because some of his anti-IRV
cronies also feel the organization should promote some method. Trouble is,
these BMS persons cannot agree on which method.
     There is something to be said about agreeing on a method. CVD, this
list, and many people have agreed on IRV.

     In order for you to understand why they oppose any improvement, you
need to know the agenda of these BMS people. Their agenda is that they want
a single winner system in place that will give a possible chance of winning
the election to any candidate, even if that candidate is the last candidate
on the count of the first choices. How else could a Nader or a Gus Hall
win. (Gus Hall is dead, but that won't stop people from voting for him)
     The stakes are more than just single seat offices, there are all the
single seat district elections at also stake.
     Here is a listing of the different single winner election methods from
best on down to worst. I have drawn a battle line to divide them. Above the
line are the Top Methods, methods that will not allow the last candidate a
chance of winning. Below the battle line are the Bottom Methods, methods
that spot the bottom candidates and give them a possible chance of winning.

Top Methods:
      Instant Runoff Voting
      Exhaustive Ballot
      Supplementary Vote (SV)
      Top Two Runoff
      Plurality
- - - - - - - - - - - - Battle Line - - - - - - - - - -
The Bottom Methods:
      Runoff without Elimination:
      Salva Count:
      Salva Voting:
      Condorcet using rated, not ranked, ballots:
      Bucklin:
      IRV plus Candidate Withdrawal:
      Smith//Plain Condorcet: aka Smith-Condorcet
      Plain Condorcet: aka PC aka Condorcet
      Smith-Condorcet using rated, not ranked, ballots:
      Smith-Condorcet-Tobin:
      Smith-Random:
      Regular-Champion:
      Double-Complement:
      Demorep-1:
      Demorep-2:
      Copeland:
      Borda Count aka Approval Count:
      Approval Voting:

      Approval Voting is the worst because it will give the best possible
chance of winning to one of the lowest candidates. Maybe that is why MikeO
has it as his current method of choice, but MikeO is not married to any of
the Bottom Methods. If CVD would promote any one of the Bottom Methods,
MikeO would give his complete support.
     BMS people hate IRV because IRV gives no chance that that last
candidate will win. IRV will encourge more votes to be received by third
party candidates, but IRV insists that the third party overtakes one of the
top two before its candidate can have a chance of winning. The BMS people
don't like this and they are vocal about it.
    There are always going to be yapping dogs nipping at the heels of
people who are trying to do good. Best to shoo them off and go about your
work.

     You should forget about the Bottom Methods, and persons who are
advocating those methods, the BMS people. In order to advance their agenda,
BMS people 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 weird
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. This is the core flaw of
the Bottom Methods.
     Next choices should never 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 leave one candidate for another.
     The question now is what can we do with the 48A, 42B, 10C election?
We could run the election over again with the same candidates. The voter
this time would be free to select the same choice or change his choice, but
this time the lead candidate will be declared the winner. There is no need
for the voters of candidates A and B to change their choices, they voted
for one of the top two and they may as well keep the same positions. It is
the voters of candidate C that must think hard about what to do. I think
most of them will change to either A or B.
     Or, to be sure, we could eliminate candidate C and force the C voters
to change their choices in the following runoff election. After all, the
largest majority of voters did decide that candidate C was to be last.
Being last is the same as being eliminated.
     But of more importance, we want a final decision made between the last
two candidates and we want all the voters to be involved in making that
decision, even if we must force the C voters to be in on the decision.
     Or, we could use Instant Runoff in the first election, which will
automatically handle any runoff without a follow up election. (all roads
lead to IRV)

     The lower choices are not netural - they do not treat all the
candidates equally, they favor the lowest candidates.  So, the more the
lower choices are used in a method the less the gap between the candidates
becomes. It is the same as if we had a method that spotted the candidates,
but spotted unequally, giving the lowest candidates more extra votes than
the higher candidates.

     Think of an election method that spots the candidates, that is,
handicaps them with an artifical advantage. It would work like this: If the
polls rated three candidates as 50A, 40B, and 10C, the candidates would be
spotted an extra 50 for A, 60 for B, and 90 for C. When we add the spot to
the poll ratings we get 100A, 100B, and 100C. Handicapping the candidates
is an effort to have them all cross the finish line at the same time, like
race horses. This is the mind set of the supporters of the Bottom Methods,
they believe all candidates should have a near equal chance to win, even if
it means spotting the lowest candidates, even if it means being
undemocratic.
     Of course the real vote count will have some differences from the
polls. These small difference will decide which candidate wins.
     If you like this method, you will like Approval Voting, which will
spot the candidates automatically and give the same results.

     Consider an Approval Voting election with the same three candidates,
in which all the voters make three choices, and the count of the first
choices is: 50A 40B 10C. No need to spot the candidates in this election
because Approval Voting will do the spotting for us, and produce the same
results: 100A, 100B, and 100C  (the system works). Approval Voting is the
same as spotting the candidates. In this example, Approval Voting closed
the gap between all the candidates. This is what all the Bottom Methods do
to some degree, they help to close the gap, AV happens to be best at
closing the gap (except for sortition).
     Now in a real Approval Voting election not all the voters are going to
make every choice, so we can expect some differences in the results, like
maybe: 92A 94B 96C. (C wins)
     Did you know that with Approval Voting a candidate can have a majority
on the first count and yet lose the election, while another candidate can
have only two percent on the first count and end up winning. (that's true)

     Therefore the rule is that we should pick the method that uses the
first choices more than the lower choices and the method should not use any
more choices, at the same time, than the number of votes cast. Any method
is to be suspect that uses more choices, at the same time, than the number
of voters. When a method does this, it is using lower choices while the
first choices are still contenders. This method should be accused of using
lower choices to help defeat first choices.
    The enforcement of this rule makes IRV the best method because IRV uses
the lower choices the least. In a three candidate race, the number of lower
choices that IRV will use will be less than one third the number of voters.
The Bottom Methods will use three to ten times more lower choices than that
used by IRV. Plus the Bottom Methods uses lower choices at the same time as
first choices. IRV will never use two of your choices at the same time.
     The Bottom Methods are nothing more than a con game being played by
the BMS people on the voters. The voters make lower choices and these lower
choices are used to help defeat the voters' first choices.

Someone once suggested the following motto for the U.S. Post Office:
       "We will deliver no mail before its time"
   Years ago, I suggested a similar motto to the EM list:
       "We will use no preference before its time"

     My suggestion got a reaction out of MikeO, but of course he and his
BMS cohorts could never accept such a policy, it would render most of their
discussions moot.
     But, voters would embrace such a policy. They, the voters, do not want
their lower choices being used until such time that their first choice is
no longer a contender - lower choices are not to be used to help defeat the
first choices. If and when the voters feel that this is happening they will
refuse to make any more lower choices in future elections. That will cause
the method being used to be reduced back down to Plurality(FPTP). (The more
things change the more they remain the same).

     We voters can be very helpful in keeping the election systems honest.
I have a few rules for all voters to follow:
1) Vote for the Instant Runoff Voting method, but do not vote for any of
the Bottom Methods.
2) If one of the Bottom Methods or Instant Runoff is installed, make
informed choices, but only necessary choices as follows:
   a) If your first choice is also the front runner, do not make a second
choice.
   b) If your first choice is also the second runner, do not make a second
choice, unless the third candidate is within the margin of error of the
polls. If so, you should make a second choice, but not a third choice.
   c) If your first choice is the third or lower candidate, then you will
need to make more choices, but one of your choices should be one of the top
two candidates.
     If the voters follow these rules, any Bottom Method will be
automatically transformed into a shade of IRV.

     IRV is the best method - stay with it. You are on the correct course.
In any educational meeting, I suggest that you do not mention any of the
Bottom Methods. If a person of the audience should mention one of the
methods, I would suggest that you say something like: "We do not advocate
that method because that is a method that allows a voter's lower choices to
help defeat a voter's first choice" (enough said).

     I would also suggest, if you see MikeO and his cronies at the side of
the road, don't pick them up. Drive right on by, and leave them in your
dust. You don't need them and their agenda.

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                               |
   +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+