[Election-Methods] IRV/Approval/Range comparisons on Wikipedia

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 07:28 PM 9/23/2007, Michael Rouse wrote:
>I was briefly skimming the discussion area for Instant Runoff Voting in
>Wikipedia (available here:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Instant-runoff_voting
>), and noticed where one of the contributors complained that comparisons
>to Approval Voting ignored, quote, "its theoretical criteria include
>susceptibility to strategic voting, which is one of AV's greatest flaws.
>Approval Voting is notoriously easy to game: you simply don't vote for
>strong candidates that you actually approve of but are not your first
>choice. That strategy introduces the same spoiler effect as plurality.
>Approval also has a terrible history in the U.S." unquote.

This is IRV propaganda. It's really bizarre, actually, because 
utterly contradictory arguments have been used. On the one hand, 
"Approval hasn't been used in the U.S. for public elections," and "It 
has a terrible history."

The fact: Approval was used, I understand, in certain early U.S. 
elections. In the period from about 1910 to 1930 or so, Bucklin 
Voting was widely used. It worked, contrary to FairVote propaganda.

Bucklin was Instant Runoff Approval! The method used in the Duluth 
elections, the one found unconstitutional in Brown v. Smallwood, had 
three ranks on the ballot. The first two ranks were first and second 
preference, and overvoting was prohibited at those ranks. The third 
rank was an "additional preference" rank, and one could vote for as 
many as desired at that rank. The first rank votes were considered in 
the first round. If a majority winner appeared, that's it, this was 
the winner of the election. If not, the second rank votes were *added 
in.* Thus it becomes an Approval election with two Approvals allowed. 
And if this does not produce a majority winner, then the third rank 
was added in as well. It is Instant Runoff Approval.

I have seen no examples alleged -- anywhere -- showing poor 
performance of Bucklin. The principle gripe seems to be, as repeated 
over and over by FairVote, that most voters did not cast additional 
votes, they just voted for the first rank.

It boggles my mind that this is considered a problem. Consider the 
context: a two-party system. If you are voting first preference for a 
frontrunner, in most elections there is no reason to vote any 
additional preference! But if you support a third party candidate, 
you are very likely to add a second preference. Depending on your 
sense of strategy, you might put your favorite first, or the favored 
frontrunner. Depends. But it is a lot better than plurality, and when 
Bucklin was repealed or found unconstitutional, that is what became the method.

Bucklin, it is true, was used for primaries (in four states, I 
think). And the level of usage of additional ranks was not high. But, 
notice this: if voters didn't use additional ranks, there was no need 
to count them. One only needs to count votes actually cast. The cost is low.

And in the election reversed by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Brown 
v. Smallwood, the Bucklin election clearly elected the best winner, 
preferred by a majority over the plurality winner from the first 
round. Almost half the voters added second or third choices. The 
final election, of Smallwood, was not close. Brown v. Smallwood was a 
travesty, the legal reasoning was preposterous, and *as written*, it 
clearly applies to IRV as well as to Approval or Bucklin. FairVote is 
promoting a different interpretation, but the hope for Minnesota IRV 
is that, when it is challenged -- it *will* be challenged -- the 
Court reverses Brown v. Smallwood.

FairVote's interpretation is based on a concern voiced by the Court 
about additional choices allegedly helping to defeat one's first 
preference. I've seen the exact phrase used in FairVote's propaganda 
repeated over and over on the web, mostly quoted through the 
Wikipedia article on Bucklin. It's not true, exactly, what is true is 
that if you add a second choice, and your favorite is not elected in 
the first round, you are then abstaining from the election between 
your favorite and your second choice.

But that concern was not all that the Court wrote, and the language 
of the court was explicit, it was objecting to *any* kind of 
alternative vote. It is quite clear to me that the Court would have 
rejected IRV as well.

And it is also pretty clear to me that this was a corrupt decision, 
the Court was counterattacking against election reform, a process 
which has been repeated through U.S. history.

>  He then
>apparently removed material comparing IRV to Range and Approval voting
>because they were "not based on reliable sources." In addition, in a
>comment about the Yee diagrams, he said "all of the voters are voting
>honestly when in some systems there is an easy and highly advantageous
>means of tactical voting," though I'm not sure how voting strategically
>would make the choice diagrams for IRV rational.

He doesn't know what he is talking about, or he does and he is 
lying..... take your pick.

This is just a repetition of FairVote propaganda. And anyone can take it out.


>I'm not trying to start an edit war on Wikipedia, but  I do know there
>are some proponents of both methods who have made, to my mind at least,
>rather convincing arguments comparing the suitability of IRV to AV and
>RV. I thought it might be interesting to at least mention peer-reviewed
>analysis of IRV, Approval, and Range  if someone knew of such a study.

I don't think it exists, yet. Range is pretty new.

There is a serious problem with Wikipedia, which is that "original 
research" is prohibited. You cannot, following the rules, research a 
subject, come up with new conclusions -- no matter how clear -- and 
post it on Wikipedia. You can, however, quote reliable authority and, 
guess what? The FairVote web site is frequently quoted as a reliable 
authority. We could challenge that, because FairVote is clearly an 
advocacy organization, and is solely interested in discovering 
arguments for IRV and against alternatives.

The Center for Range Voting is *also* an advocacy site, but is also 
run by people who are quite willing to put up arguments against what 
they proposed. Essentially, their advocacy grows out of study and 
convinction based on knowledge, whereas FairVote's position evolved 
politically, out of tactics considered necessary for their ultimate 
goals. The history is actually quite interesting....

I should take a look at the IRV article.... It's about time we paid a 
little more attention to it. But I don't know how much time I have.