[EM] Approval Voting vs Instant Runoff Voting:

[Simmons' Approval Voting]

Dear Forest Simmons,

     On the 26th of January, you sent a letter to me and to the
instantrunoff list. I made a reply, but I was waiting for the list to
publish your letter before I sent in my reply. I like to have a gallery.
      Looks like they are not going to publish your letter, so, being as
you are on this list, I am posting my reply here.

Regards, Donald,

  --------- Forwarded Letter and Comments ---------
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 17:33:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Forest Simmons <fsimmons at pcc.edu>
To: "Donald E Davison" <donald at mich.com>
cc: Instant Runoff Voting <instantrunoff at egroups.com>
Subject: Re: Editorial - Florida Needs a Runoff Policy:

>Hi, I like almost everything you said, especially the carefully
>thought out ways to awaken interest without scaring the public.
>
>I like the idea of using "Runoff Policy" as a lead-in rather
>than any specific method.
>
>As you know there are other methods besides IRV that obviate the
>need for an extra trip to the voting polls.  One of them, Approval
>Voting, has some significant advantages over Instant Runoff.

Don: It all depends on what a person's agenda is. If the agenda is to give
extra undue help to a lower candidate so that that candidate can slip thur
the back door to win the election, then you are correct to feel that
Approval Voting has some significant advantage in this respect over Irving
(IRV).  Approval Voting does subsidize the lower candidates while Irving
insists on treating all the candidates and all the parties and all the
voters with equality. The word `all' includes everyone, not just the lowest
candidates and their supporters.
    If we are ever going to have a better election method, it will need to
be a method that is better for everyone. Irving will be of help to all
factions.

>For example, suppose that there are three significant contenders for
>the the presidency A, B, and C.  The majority of the voters like C,
>but they're afraid to vote for her because the corporate media have
>played up the corporate candidates so heavily that nobody is sure if
>she really has a chance.  To be safe, they vote mostly for A and B.
>One of these wins, and the other thinks of C as a spoiler.

Don: This example does not compute.  You say; `The majority of the voters
like C', if so, then that fact would have been reflected in the polls
before the election, and candidate C would have at least been the leading
candidate, if not the majority candidate, in the tally of the election
votes. I think you are in error, candidate C would win this Plurality
election.

>In IRV, C is eliminated, and either A or B gets the presidency.
>The lock of the two corporate parties is not broken.

Don: You are in error again, for the same reason as above. I suspect what
you are doing is setting the stage for some agenda. You are trying to make
it look like Plurality and Irving will not elect the correct candidate and
then your champion, Approval Voting, will ride in on a white horse and
`save the day'.

>Under AV, most people vote either AC or BC, with a minority voting
>just A or just B, and tiny groups voting just C or AB.
>
>Under AV, C is the winner.

Don: It comes as no surprise that C is the winner.
     I agree that candidate C should be the winner, but I do not agree that
this is the way most people would have voted. I have this theory that goes:
If and when Approval Voting or Condorcet are ever imposed on the people,
these methods will change automatically into Irving, as a result of the way
the people will vote and/or not vote. This is the Trump Card that Irving
holds over Approval Voting and Condorcet. For that reason, I have no fear
of these two methods, if they are installed, so what, the people will
change the election into an Irving election.
     Under Approval Voting, most people in your example will vote for only
C, no other choice, because most people will learn that, in the Approval
method, other choices they make will be used to help defeat their number
one most preferred choice. If the people don't see that right away, someone
will make sure they are informed.
     This is a common mistake made by supporters of Approval Voting. They
think most voters will be making more than one choice. Not so, the
supporters of the major factions have no interest in deciding which of the
lower candidates should be last. On the other hand, the supporters of the
lower candidates should and will make lower choices because they will have
an interest in deciding which candidate should be first.
    Had the Presidential election in Florida been conducted by Approval
Voting, the supporters of Bush and Gore had no need to also vote for one of
the lower party candidates, Nader would not have won.  An Approval Voting
election in Florida would have results something like the following:
     First Count:   48 B,   48 G,   1 WG,   1 XB,   1 YG,   1 ZG
Approval Results:   49 B,   51 G,   1 W,    1 X,    1 Y,    1 Z
  Irving Results:   49 B,   51 G
     Approval Voting elected the Irving winner.
     The important numbers of the Approval results ended up being the same
as the Irving numbers. Approval will automatically change into Irving, so
we may as well use Irving as our method of choice to begin with.
     If Condorcet were used as the method, Gore will win all of his
pairings as follows:
     (51G 49B)  (50G 1W)  (51G 1X)  (50G 1Y)  (50G 1Z)
     Condorcet also elected the Irving winner. The important numbers of
both Approval Voting and Condorcet will be the same as the Irving numbers,
so what is the point of even talking about Approval Voting or Condorcet.
     Your unrealistic example is not going to make the case for Approval
Voting, but the proof of the pudding will be in the ballots, real ballots
from a real Approval Voting election will be much more helpful to us. The
ballots will tell us how the people will vote. I would like to see some, do
you have any?
     A few years ago, on this Election Methods list, a member informed us
that he had been able to get his student body to use Approval Voting in
their next student Presidential election. I requested that he make
available to us the ballots from that election, he said that he would. But,
when the time came for the election, it was decided not to use Approval
Voting because they only had two candidates running for Student President.
     In an Approval Voting election if there happens to be a candidate with
a majority of the first choices, it is possible for this candidate to lose
the election. This is because the winner in an Approval Voting election is
determined by all the choices, not just the first choices. With only two
candidates, the student body was facing the very real possibility of having
one candidate seeming to win via the first choices and the other candidate
winning via Approval Voting, the addition of first and second choices. Best
to avoid this public relation conflict, best to avoid Approval Voting.

>As this example shows, AV is a much better hope than IRV for
>limbering up the rigid "two party megalopoly."

Don: Your example shows nothing, except to give yourself away by exposing
your agenda.  I suspect that your agenda is to find and support an election
method that will propel your third party candidate thru the back door and
up to the top along side the top finishers. If so, you have picked the
right method for you, Approval Voting subsidizes the candidates with extra
votes, with the lowest candidates receiving most of these extra votes.
Consider a four candidate election:
          40 A,  30 B,  20 C,  10 D
Now, it was not the method that caused candidate A to receive forty percent
of the votes and for candidate D to receive only ten percent of the votes.
No, it was the voters that did that, because that is their job, they were
merely sticking to business. It is the business of the voters to favor one
candidate over the others, it is not the business of any election method to
favor any candidate over any other, but that is just what happens when the
lower choices are added in with the first choices. Take a look at the lower
choices.
          60 A,  70 B,  80 C,  90 D,
    The lower choices favor the lowest candidates over the highest
candidates. This is not the intent of the voters.
    When we add the lower choices to the first choices we get:
        100 A,  100 B,  100 C,  100 D,
    We must be careful how many of the lower choices we use. Lower choices
negate the intent of the first choices. The more of them that are added
into the calculations the more the voter's intent is negated. Approval
Voting is the worst method in this respect because it uses all the lower
choices.
    The first choices are the voter's favored choices. The lower choices
are the reverse, they are the voter's disfavored choices. The lower choices
are the leftover choices and they favor the lowest candidates. This is not
rocket science, anyone should be able to see that when we added in all the
lower choices, the lowest candidates were assisted more than the higher
candidates. Adding all the choices together gives all candidates the same
chance of winning, regardless of how the people voted. We may as well use
sortition.

>IRV inspires hope, but it doesn't come through when it counts most.

Don: Yes, you are correct, Irving does inspire hope, but it will not
corrupt the election, it will not destroy the voter's right to favor one
candidate over the others, and that is how it will `come through when it
counts the most'. Irving does not have a back door thru which a third party
candidate can slip into the winner's circle. If a person is looking for a
method that will spot their candidate the difference between candidates,
don't look to Irving, spotting only happens in Approval Voting, Condorcet,
horse racing, and bowling.

>Because of this people will eventually get disillusioned with it and
>alternative voting systems in general.  It's like the boy who cried, "wolf."

Don: You are the boy who is crying `wolf'. You and some others like you
that keep raising the red flag of false hope that there is a better method
than Irving.

>Please take a look at the websites that compare AV and IRV before
>jumping on the IRV bandwagon too enthusiastically.

Don: I have already compare them, I don't need to compare them for the rest
of my life. I am now on the Irving bandwagon, `enthusiastically' I might
add.
     I know how you feel, I have felt the same, if there is a best method
out there somewhere, you want to support this best method, well I have some
good news for you that will save you years of seeking. If you advocate
Irving you will be supporting the best method.

>Of course, if you don't mind staying withing the grip of the two party
>system, and you just want to facilitate a more democratic choice within
>that system, then you might just as well stick with IRV.

Don: Plurality is what gives the two party system its grip. Irving will
release that grip and allow third parties to have some meaningful success,
but you must realize that the major parties will not remain static, they
will evolve in the face of changing conditions and may remain the major
parties of the people.
     You have got to accept that a candidate must get enough votes in order
to win. Stop advocating some magic method that will leverage your
candidate's few votes into a win.
     And yes, I will be sticking with Irving.

>What puzzles me is that Nader supporters like The Progressive and
>The Jim Hightower Lowdown have come out advocating IRV.  They know
>they need something different, but they don't realize that IRV is
>a Trojan Horse for them.
>
>Forest

Don:  The current method of Plurality is good for two major parties but not
good for any third party. Approval Voting is good for third parties but not
good for the two major parties. Maybe Nader supporters realize what you do
not realize, that is, now is the time to accept everyone to the table by
having an election method that is good for all parties, all candidates, and
all voters.  Anyone who is honest about this difference between the two
methods cannot but help arriving at the conclusion that Irving is the best
method. Best because it is best to treat everyone equally.
     No, Irving is not a Trojan Horse intented to bring harm to some party.
If all parties embrace Irving, all of them will be better off.

Regards, Donald E Davison

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  ------------- Orginial Letter -------------
>Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 07:05:40 -0500
>To: Instant Runoff Voting <instantrunoff at egroups.com>
>From: donald at mich.com (Donald E Davison)
>Subject: Editorial - Florida Needs a Runoff Policy:
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 01/26/01
> Greetings,
>      I agree with Tom Ruen. Top Two Runoff is an easier sell than Irving.
> Most people know what a runoff is and most of them will approve of its use.
>      It would be best if we were to promote, advocate, and/or explain
> Irving via the simple Top Two Runoff. Sell the public on the value of using
> the runoff, but let them know there is something better than Top Two.
>      If we write, `Florida needs Instant Runoff Voting', few people will
> realize what we are going to talk about and fewer will care, but if we
> write `Florida needs a runoff policy',  most people will understand what we
> are going to talk about and most of them will agree, or be close to
> agreement.
>      I think we will always need to include Top Two Runoff as the lead
> speaker to introduce Irving, at least until Irving becomes the method of
> choice of American governments.
>
> Regards, Don
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Florida Needs a Runoff Policy:  by Don Davison
>
>      When an election is very close, and/or there is no candidate with a
> majority, it is best to use one of the runoff methods instead of merely
> conducting a recount. Florida spent weeks recounting without producing any
> conclusive results.
>      I would like to talk about three runoff methods that could have been
> used:   1) Top Two Runoff:   2) Supplementary Vote:   3) Irving:
>      The Top Two Runoff method would drop all the candidates except the top
> two and then conduct a later special election between these two candidates.
> This runoff would have worked very well in the case of Florida in that it
> would have elected the correct candidate. It would have required an extra
> election, but I feel that the people would have accepted this if it meant
> selecting the correct choice of the people. Besides, the total cost would
> most likely be less than the costs that were incurred by recounting.
>
>      The Supplementary Vote method makes it easy to avoid the second
> election. In this method the voter is allowed to make two choices. In the
> event a runoff is needed between the top two candidates, the votes of all
> the candidates below the top two, would be transferred to their second
> choices. This will change the vote totals of the top two candidates, with
> the winner being the one with the most votes. Transferring these votes from
> the lower candidates to the top two candidates is the runoff, which avoids
> an actual runoff election.
>      These two methods would have worked very well in Florida because there
> were two candidates far ahead of the others, but in other single seat
> elections we may not always have two candidates far ahead of the pack of
> candidates.
>      In the case of an election of four or more candidates and three that
> are close together, these two method may not always elect the correct
> candidate.  We will need something better than Top Two Runoff or
> Supplementary Vote, we will need Irving.
>
>      Irving stands for IRV, which is short for Instant Runoff Voting, which
> is a single seat election method for three or more candidates in which you,
> the voter, may make more than one choice. The candidate with the lowest
> number of first choices will be dropped. If this candidate happens to be
> your first choice, fear not, your vote will not be dropped. Your vote will
> be salvaged and transferred, as an instant runoff, to your next choice, and
> transferred again if necessary until your vote ends up on one of the last
> two candidates so that you can have a voice in the final runoff of the
> election. Irving gives you the best control of your vote, use it wisely.
>      Had Irving been in Florida, Al Gore would have received most of the
> second choices of the Nader voters. Then, when votes would be transferred
> to these second choices, there would have been enough for Gore to win the
> state in spite of the troubles of the Butterfly Ballots and the Chads.
> There would have been no court appearances and no wangling. There would
> have been stability with no appearance of crisis.
>      Irving will be a good friend to any candidate who is the correct
> winner, but alas, this potential friend was not invited to Florida. Irving
> is also the friend of the voters because Irving will make sure that the
> majority will be able to elect the candidate they favor the most.
>      Now is the Hour for everyone of us to insist that Irving, the friend
> of both the voters and the candidates, be present at all future elections,
> on every level of government, and everywhere in our America.
>

  Regards, Donald Davison - Host of New Democracy,  www.mich.com/~donald

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