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

[Tom Ruen]

Donald Davison said:

>      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!

Oh, Don! You do like to go on!

Support my choice to be able to vote for my first and second choice equally
and fully, and perhaps I'll stop crying.

Support full vote tied ranks in IRV. Then I'll be happy to let the losers
lose.

Tom Ruen

----- Original Message -----
From: "I like Irving" <donald at mich.com>
To: "[EM]" <election-methods-list at eskimo.com>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 6:46 AM
Subject: [EM] The Man Who Re-Invented Four Election Methods:


> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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>