[EM] IRV vs. Plurality

[John B. Hodges]

>From: "James Green-Armytage" <jarmyta at antioch-college.edu>
>Subject: [EM] IRV vs. Plurality
>
>Dear voting methods fans,
>
>	I am interested in knowing how everyone here feels about this question:
>
>	Which is better, IRV or Plurality?
>...
>	The reason I think that this question is important is because it has
>immediate relevance for the election methods movement, if there is to be
>one. That is, do the IRV people, Approval people, and Condorcet people
>necessarily have to be blood enemies, or can they find a common ground in
>their critique of plurality?
>	Personally, I am hoping that we can find a common ground, 
>because I fail
>to see how the movement could make much progress if it is so sharply
>divided against itself this early in the game.

(JBH) I propose a slogan: DOWN WITH THE TW0-PARTY SYSTEM!!!

>PART ONE: TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF IRV VS. PLURALITY, LEAVING OTHER METHODS
>ASIDE

(JBH) I think Merrill did as thorough a job as we need, in his book 
MAKING MULTICANDIDATE ELECTIONS MORE DEMOCRATIC.   IRV beats 
Plurality on a long list of measures.

I think these debates over the best method for choosing a single 
winner are OK as long as we are all united in saying SINGLE-WINNER 
RACES ARE TO BE AVOIDED WHENEVER POSSIBLE; USE MULTI-SEAT DISTRICTS 
AND PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION!

It is proportional representation that will open up the process to 
"real choices, new voices", and will end the two-party duopoly. One 
of my unfinished projects is to summarize the critique of Plurality 
given in Douglas J. Amy's book. Exaggerated majorities, manufactured 
majorities, gerrymandering as an inevitable part of the system, 
denial of representation to minorities of all kinds, issueless 
campaigns, etc. etc.

>PART TWO: CONCERNS RELATING TO IMPLEMENTATION OF OTHER METHODS

(JBH) The key implementation issue is the use of ranked ballots. IRV 
folks and Condorcet folks can agree on those; the question for the 
unity of the reform movement is whether Approval advocates can also 
sign onto ranked ballots. I think a reasonable compromise would be 
for IRV and Condorcet folks to insist on a ranked ballot that allows 
ranking two or more candidates as tied. This would then be adaptable 
to straight Approval or to the three-level, four-level, N-level 
modifications of Approval that have been discussed.

How the ballots are then tallied to find a winner is open to 
discussion. The OVERRIDING consideration is that the method be seen 
by the electorate as providing "legitimacy" to the winner. IRV is 
easy to understand, as a series of runoffs with one fewer candidate 
each time. I hate to call it this, but it could be called "musical 
chairs runoff". Everyone is familiar with the concept of eliminating 
one candidate at a time, to find a winner.

Condorcet advocates might consider a name change; call it "tournament 
runoff". At least some types of sports (Chess, Judo, maybe others) 
hold tournaments where every contestant is paired off versus every 
other in turn. It might be easier to sell the idea to the public if 
you present it as a round-robin tournament between all candidates. If 
one emerges undefeated from all possible two-person runoffs, they are 
declared the tournament champion. If nobody is undefeated, then we 
name ________________ as the tournament winner.

The blank must be filled in a way that is easily understood. Suppose 
we said "the one who wins the greatest number of two-person runoffs". 
Is this the same as the Borda Count winner? Someone named Black 
proposed that as a Condorcet completion method; Merrill compared 
Black's method with others in his book. Advocates of other 
Condorcet-based methods should work on a one-sentence description to 
fill in the blank. If we allow ties on the ranked ballots, we must 
also consider the possibility of ties at the end of whatever method; 
designate a tie-breaker.

Approval advocates would either have to agree on a method for 
converting ranked ballots to approvals, that could be easily 
explained to children and busy adults, or sell the idea of declaring 
the "most widely acceptable" candidate the winner, "acceptable" being 
everyone listed on the first line of the ballot.

>	In general, I think that it is very counter-productive for advocates of
>Condorcet and Approval to spend their efforts trying to block attempts to
>implement IRV. It seems obvious that their effort would be better spent
>trying to implement their own favorite system, rather than defending
>plurality against IRV.
>	This is a very big country, and there are lots of people who use voting
>to decide things, and most of those people are still using plurality. Use
>of IRV hardly means blocking Condorcet. 99% of the time, it means
>overturning plurality or two round runoff.

(JBH) [Standing ovation.]

>	Perhaps when we are deciding on which method to use to elect the
>president, this will no longer be the case, but we are quite a long way
>off that point, and for now the field is wide open.
>	It seems to me that there is tons of room for people to 
>implement IRV in
>some places, Condorcet in others, Approval in others, and still more
>systems in others. Not only is this the most cooperative approach for the
>movement to take, it is also the one that provides for the most feedback.
>That is, if many groups are using each of the different methods, then
>voting methods organizers will be able to track the results and see how
>the different methods are working under different circumstances, and this
>will enrich the theoretical debate immensely.

(JBH) "Let a hundred flowers bloom. Let a hundred schools of thought contend."

>CONCLUSION
>
>	I have presented some of my opinions here. Although I am 
>uncertain about
>some things, I feel fairly sure about others. I am fairly sure that IRV is
>technically better than plurality. I am fairly sure that IRV, Condorcet,
>and Approval people should try to treat each other as allies rather than
>competitors, and that they should not try to strawman or exclude each
>others' systems.
>	I think that the voting methods movement will be healthier given a
>pluralistic, multi-system approach, that is one in which different
>alternative systems are being advocated for and implemented
>simultaneously. I don't think that we should try to close off debate and
>resolve on a single system before we begin advocacy. I think that we
>should give people a chance to make intelligent decisions about voting
>systems, rather than only letting them know about the system that we like
>best. Of course, if they only ask for one recommendation, then we should
>give them the one we prefer. But if they are interested in the
>alternatives, then we should not hide them or give false arguments against
>them.
>>
>
>Sincerely,
>	James

(JBH) Let us unite in criticizing Plurality, supporting Proportional 
Representation for all Legislative seats, and trying alternative 
single-winner methods for all Executive seats.
-- 
----------------------------------
John B. Hodges, jbhodges@  @usit.net
The two-party system is obsolete and dysfunctional.
Better forms of democracy: www.fairvote.org
REAL CHOICES, NEW VOICES, by Douglas J. Amy.