[EM] Approval Voting vs Instant Runoff Voting:

[Forest Simmons]

On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Donald Davison wrote:

> 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.

Forest: Since you like a gallery, I assume that you won't mind if I
include the EM list in my reply. 

>       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.

Forest: I have never seen a shred of evidence of any type that IRV somehow
treats the voters and candidates with "more equality."  What objective
criterion of equality are you referring to?

> 
> >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.
> 

Forest: Apparently you are unwilling to consider my example, so you modify
the hypothesis, and naturally come out with a different conclusion.  The
technical term for that kind of logic is called "begging the question."

When we say "If A, then B," we don't have to prove A.  If A can never
happen then the implication is true vacuously. 

If you think that it is impossible for the corporate media to scare people
into voting for their second choice, then this example is of purely
academic interest to you.

But if you decide to reverse that hypothesis, please don't pretend you are
talking about the same example.

By the way, a very good case can be made that the corporate media actually
do have the power to convince people that the corporate candidates are the
only viable ones.

I won't try to give such an argument, but I will share an interesting
tidbit in this connection. The Time Magazine website had an unofficial
poll in the last couple of months leading up to the November election.
With hundreds of thousands of unofficial preferences tallied, Ralph Nader
had sixty percent of the total. Of course there was a disclaimer about the
validity of the poll.

Was this result reported in Time Magazine, on the main page of the
website, or elsewhere? No. Might it have been if the results came out more
to the liking of the big guys? 

One can dismiss this by saying that people that go to the Time Magazine
website are atypical, or that some hacker figured out a way to mess up the
poll. Probably one of those, but I have my doubts.

Along these lines an argument can be made that the corporate pollsters
have a vested interest in the corporate status quo, as well. 

In view of the extreme means used to keep Nader from attending the
debates, let alone participate in them, it doesn't stretch the imagination
too far to think that in some future election when there is even more
grass roots support for a non-corporate candidate, the big guys might pull
out all the stops.

> 
> 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.

If by "agenda" you mean that I am trying to make a point, you are correct.
Why else would anyone give an instructive example?


>     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,...

Forest: Are you truly unaware that IRV can elect candidates from the
bottom of the heap? 

My response to your original letter was intended to encourage your public
spirit and good public relations ideas, as well as to make you aware of
some of the alternatives to IRV that you may have been overlooking.

>From your reply, I suspect that my good faith was ill founded.  Having (as
you say) already explored the alternatives to your satisfaction and
wholeheartedly embraced the IRV bandwagon, you are more interested in
showing off your rhetorical prowess to the peanut gallery than in
continuing a good faith dialogue, or so it would seem.

Unless I am grossly mistaken on this score (in which case a thousand
apologies) I see little point in squandering more time on such polemics. 

In any case, you will have to come up with a much higher quality of
polemic to impress me or even hold my interest.

Peace,

Forest

> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>   ------------- 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                               |
>    +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
> 
> 
>