[EM] Fighting the good fight against IRV

[Bart Ingles]

There was also a pro-IRV letter in the Libertarian Party's national
newsletter:
   http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0101/mailbox.html

Bart



Michael Welford wrote:
> 
> I saw yet another recommendation for IRV. It appeared in the Hightower
> Report. Jim Hightower is a left-wing populist from Texas. ( I know that
> description sounds contradictory. ) In response to the recent
> presidential election debacle, he recommends a number of electoral
> reforms. Most were good, including abolishing the electoral college and
> using proportional representation.
> 
> Unfortunately the first recommendation is IRV. In support of IRV he
> gives a hypothetical example wth Bush, Nader and Gore running, in which
> Ralph Nader is eliminated first after a respectable showing and Gore
> wins when votes are transfered.  In response, I sent him the following
> e-mail.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> This is in response to your Hightower report article on electoral
> reforms. I agree on most most of them, but I have some reservations
> about Instant Runoff.
> 
> The problem ironically enough is that IRV can be a little too friendly
> to third parties. The example you give for a strong Nader showing is a
> reasonable example of what could happen in 2004 under IRV.
> 
> Now consider what might happen 4 years later. We imagine that Gore has
> drifted to the right to pull in conservative voters and succeeded only
> alienating the left wing. Polls show Bush likely to take 40% of 1st
> place votes in a (re)rematch with Nader and Gore getting about 30% each.
> It's likely that Gore would beat either of the other candidates in a
> head-to-head match. Nader supporters vote for their favorite confidant
> that the spoiler problem has been solved. The result is that Gore gets
> the lowest number of first place votes and is eliminated. There are two
> possible outcomes at this stage, both of them bad. No matter whether
> which candidate wins the runoff their victory is tainted. And the vote
> lists exist that prove that Gore would have beaten any other candidate.
> 
> But that's not the worst of it. If Nader is just a little behind Gore in
> 1st place preferences, a small number Bush supporters might dishonestly
> put Nader at the top of their lists just to eliminate Gore. ( I  suppose
> most Bush supporters would be too honest to do this. That's what the
> manipulaters will count on. )
> 
> It gets worse if there is also a party of the extreme right in the race.
> This can give rise to both ends against the middle strategy.
> 
> The problem is that IRV can discriminate against centrist candidates in
> a basically unfair way. And I think centrists will be smart enough to
> figure that out.
> 
> Many of us favor a method that will always pick a candidate that can
> beat any other candidate, if such a strong candidates exists. And the
> voting lists needed for IRV give the information to identify them. Our
> problem is that we can't agree on what to do when there is no such
> candidate. ( I personally would revert to plurality in these rare
> cases.)
> 
> If you want to know more you do a web search on voting and Condorcet. Or
> reply to me and I'll share some of my bookmarked URLs.
> 
> I like the other electoral reforms just fine.
> 
> Keep up the good work.
> 
> Mike Welford