[EM] The Man Who Re-Invented Four Election Methods:

[I like Irving]

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 03/16/01
Greetings List,

Steve Barney wrote:
  "Donald Davison's "Repeating Ballots Standard" is anything but
original. It has long been recommended by "Robert's Rules of Order"

Don: So, once again I have re-invented an election method, that makes four.
     I'm kind of proud of that track record.  I'm thinking this could be my
claim to fame, "The Man Who Re-Invented Four Election Methods - Preference
Voting - Limited Voting - Coombs - Repeated Balloting."

     I'm not surprise that my Repeating Ballots turned out to be already
existing.  The method is very simple, it only stands to reason the method
would have been thought of and in use before my time.
     What is a surprise is how close the two names are to each other.  I
named the method, Repeating Ballots and the original name is Repeated
Balloting.
     But of more importance, are the following lines by Steve Barney:

     "I think it was used when no US Presidential candidate won a
majority of electoral college votes. I seem to recall that the
balloting was repeated over 30 times, in one case (I heard this on
NPR during the indecision 2000 fiaso.)"

Don: This points up the fact that the first choices are very very important
to the voters in any election using any method.  These voters were not
interested in making any lower choices.  They were willing to stonewall for
thirty ballots.  The message here is that lower choices are to be less
important than first choices.  And the way we make lower choices less
important is to use less of them than first choices.  If your method is
using as many or more lower choices than first choices, your method is
wrong, don't use it.
     The importance of first choices is one lesson to be learned from this
thirty ballot election, but there is another lesson to be learned, and that
is, we must design election methods so that there is an ending.  I had the
good sense to realize this when I put in a limit to the number of ballots
and a `Judgement Day' on the last ballot by having the winner decided by
Plurality.
     Of course, it would be better if Irving were used on the last ballot
instead of Plurality, but then why not use Irving on the first and only
ballot, yes indeed, why not?
     There is no good reason not to use Irving.  You anti-Irving types are
always crying about the elimination of your compromise candidate, get off
it, you're talking stupid.  An election is about winners and losers.  The
margin to lose need not be larger than the margin to win.  Everywhere in
the voting world, a margin of one vote is enough to decide a winner.  That
same margin is acceptable to decide a loser or to decide which candidate to
eliminate. Losers are losers, let them lose.
     The third candidates of three are losers, stop hanging on to them -
let them lose!

     Irving is best because Irving has a judgement day for the losing
candidates, but Irving does allow losing voters to change their votes.
     Besides, I feel Repeating Ballots will show a voting pattern very
close to Irving, so Irving must be best.

     I am the man that re-invented four election methods - -
     - - and I have spoken,  Ha Ha.


Donald Davison,

  ----------- Original Letter ------------
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 16:55:50 -0600
From: Steve Barney <BARNES99 at vaxa.cis.uwosh.edu>
Subject: Repeated Balloting
To: election-methods-list at eskimo.com
Cc: donald at mich.com

Donald Davison's "Repeating Ballots Standard" is anything but
original. It has long been recommended by "Robert's Rules of Order"
(see "Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised," 10th ed, 2000, Section
45, <http://www.robertsrules.com/>). The section regarding
preferential voting vs repeated balloting is included, below.

Since Robert's Rules recommends it, repeated balloting likely is very
commonly used. I think the US Congress uses it in some cases. For
example, I think it was used when no US Presidential candidate won a
majority of electoral college votes. I seem to recall that the
balloting was repeated over 30 times, in one case (I heard this on
NPR during the indecision 2000 fiaso.) I imagine that those votes are
available in the federal election records.

>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>Repeating Ballots Standard:  by Donald Davison
>
>     1) This is a method in which there is the possibility of repeat
>ballots, limited in number to the number of candidates on the first ballot.
>     2) On each ballot, the voter only cast one vote, no other choices.
>     3) Anytime there is a candidate with a majority of votes cast in the
>current ballot, that candidate is the winner and the election is over,
>otherwise the ballot is repeated.
>     4) No candidate is eliminated, but a candidate may withdraw before the
>next ballot.
>     5) On the next ballot, voters may vote the same candidate, change
>their vote, or not vote.
>     6) If there is no majority winner before the last ballot, the leading
>candidate of the last ballot is the winner.
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
<snip>