[EM] Need IRV examples; voting show

[James Gilmour]

Dave quoted:
> >>>Bart had written:
> >>>
> >>>>For example, instead of precincts, suppose the division is between
> >>>>walk-in and absentee votes, or between election-night and recount
> >>>>results.  Imagine candidate A being declared the winner, with a recount
> >>>>turning up additional votes supporting A, thereby causing A to lose.  I
> >>>>think this would undermine public acceptance of the outcome, especially
> >>>>given the recent hysteria surrounding the U.S. electoral college.  The
> >>>>answer might be to keep all preliminary results secret, but I'd be more
> >>>>comfortable if that weren't necessary.
> >>>>
Dave commented:
> A GUARANTEED result of introducing secrecy would be to increase voter
> suspicion that there were evil reasons for the secrecy.

I agree that the introduction of secrecy where there previously was none will
almost always create suspicion.

>
> Another effect of such secrecy would be to increase opportunity for
> exactly the evils the voters might suspect.

I don't agree.  The best way to avoid the evils is to have robust, well defined
procedures that are open to scrutiny at all stages and ultimately open to legal
challenge.  Provided the competing candidates and their representatives can see,
observe and challenge everything that is going on, I don't think the presence of
the typical media circus offers any greater insurance against evil doing.  Given
the ownership of much of the media, one might suspect the reverse!

>
> There is a natural division between walk-in and absentee votes:
>       Usually most votes will be walk-in - usually enough to determine
> election winner.  Thus it is possible to sum these counts shortly after
> the polls close and report winners and near ties - AND this is EXPECTED.

This may be expected, but that is not an adequate justification or render it
relevant.  Just because we can do something, does not mean that we should do it.
It certainly does not make it relevant.

>       It is reasonable to permit absentee ballots to be completed and
> mailed the day before election day.  Thus counting of these cannot be
> completed until several days after election day.

This is part of US practice that I just do not understand.  There is no good
reason why absentee ballots should not be distributed as soon as the final list of
candidates is known and the papers can be printed.  Those ballots can be returned
any time, but the deadline for those papers to be back in the hands of the
Returning Officer should be the CLOSE of polling on polling day - not several days
later.  There may even be a good case for making the postal deadline the day
before polling day or noon (second post) on the day of polling.


> If a counting method has the problem about changing declared winners
> described above, secrecy is not acceptable as a method of hiding the
> problem (as I state above), and voters seeing the switch of winners is not
> acceptable (seems reasonable), seems to me we have declared the counting
> method to be a failure.

Even though the recount situation Bart described (the non-monotonic overturn of a
IRV winner who got more votes in the recount) would be extremely embarrassing and
almost certainly lead to calls for a change in the voting system,  I completely
agree that it could never be grounds for keeping such information secret.  What I
did challenge was the relevance of publishing "results" from walk-in ballots and
absentee ballots separately.  The only tally that matters is the final, total
tally of all the votes.  Then you have a result.  Then and only then can you know
who the winner is.

<CUT>

Bart had written:
> >>This is even more true when
> >>the IRV variant is a restricted one, such as the "supplemental vote"
> >>method used in London (where the voter is only allowed a first and
> >>second choice).
> >>
I had replied:
> > The Supplemental Vote is highly defective and should NEVER be used.  It will
> > usually disenfranchise a large proportion of those who vote.  In the London
> > Mayoral election, 22% of the second preferences were discarded
> because they were
> > not cast of either of the two front-runners.  Many of us campaigned
> against the
> > use of the Supplemental Vote, but our Government had political reasons for its
> > choice - they thought it would help their candidate to win.  They were wrong!!
>
Dave said:
> Makes no sense to me.

I'm not clear what makes no sense to you.  If you mean the Supplementary Vote, we
are at one.  Rest assured, those of us who campaigned against the use of teh SV
did not want a return to Plurality - we wanted to move forward to something much
better than both.


> Going back to 2000 and Plurality, I do not influence
> Bush vs Gore if I vote for Nader - I did not vote for a front runner,
> but voting
> for Nader was within my rights.

I would not want to restrict that in any way.  What I want is a voting system that
allows you, and every other voter, to express your views on the candidates as you
wish, and then selects the one candidate who is the most representative of the
voters when all voters have an equal say in that decision.  That is one enormous
challenge.  Electing the ONE "best" representative of the voters is the biggest
challenge in electoral science.

James

----
For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), 
please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em