[EM] Re: IRV Letter

[Curt Siffert]

I know here in Oregon, as with several state constitutions (since 
several of them seem to have come from the same template), ranked 
ballots are mentioned in the constitution, but Approval ballots could 
be seen as unconstitutional.

Also, I can't remember where, but I thought I heard a story of a couple 
of localities that had Approval at one point, but ended up voting to 
get rid of it.  The voters felt like that also saying "Yes" to their 
second choice increased the chances of their second choice beating 
their first choice.  So while there may not be a mathematical reason 
for them to vote insincerely, there was a psychological reason to do 
so.  The implication is that in political elections, people just tend 
to plain old dislike Approval.

I'm not sure if IRV is better than plurality - while there are cases 
where plurality works better than IRV, IRV might be better in terms of 
likely scenarios.  But it is true that the bigger ordeal is getting the 
public used to using ranked ballots - switching out the counting method 
is a backend matter.  For that reason, piggybacking Condorcet onto an 
IRV effort - say, by asking for a commission to compare the two 
counting methods even while IRV is being implemented for the public - 
might be a good political approach.

Curt


On Apr 23, 2004, at 1:13 PM, Jeffrey O'Neill wrote:

> Mike,
>
> I'm mostly a lurker on this list, but I'd like to respond to your 
> letter.
>
> (1) IRV is better than plurality.
> I'm assuming that you and most everyone on this list agrees with this.
>
> (2) It is easier to explain IRV than Condorcet.
> Convincing a group to change from plurality to any other voting system 
> is really hard.  IRV is easier to explain because it is similar to a 
> runoff election.  While Condorcet isn't so hard to explain when a 
> winner exists, the concept of cycles is very difficult to explain to 
> the average person.  I think your letter is much too complicated for 
> its intended audience.  People aren't going to get it.
>
> (3) IRV could be a stepping stone to Condorcet.
> I don't think it makes sense to sabotage efforts to enact IRV.  If 
> anything I think it makes more sense to support IRV as a stepping 
> stone to Condorcet.  Once people are familiar with ranked ballots, 
> they can more easily be persuaded to consider Condorcet.
>
> (4) Approval doesn't help get to Condorcet.
> While approval voting is certainly easy to explain, you have to get 
> around peoples' knee-jerk reactions of "one person one vote." (I know 
> that OPOV is only about redistricting, but most people don't).  Also 
> approval doesn't provide you with a good stepping stone to Condorcet.
>
> (5) Condorcet and Approval may violate state constitutions.
> This is beyond the scope of this email, but something to think about.
>
> In summary, the practical and legal issues are as important as the 
> theoretical issues.
>
> Jeff
>
>> From: "MIKE OSSIPOFF" <nkklrp at hotmail.com>
>>
>> Fairly recently messages have been posted here about IRV proposals for
>> particular communties or states. A recent such message was about 
>> Utah. Could
>> someone re-post the e-mail addresses at which I could write to the 
>> people
>> considering those IRV proposals, or the e-mail addresses of the local
>> newspapers there?
>>
>> I tried to reply earlier today, but it turned out that I'd merely 
>> posted my
>> letter to an IRV mailing list. That's ok too, but I want to write to 
>> the
>> people who are considering IRV as a public proposal, and to the 
>> newspaper in
>> the cities where that's being considered.
>>
>> The IRV promoters will push their nonreform through everywhere they 
>> want to,
>> if we're so busy discussing things more theoretical that we don't 
>> take time
>> to communicate with the people who have only heard the IRV promoters 
>> and who
>> are considering accepting their proposal. And, as I said, newspapers 
>> in
>> cities where IRV is being considered.
>>
>> We can stop IRV. IRV can't get adopted anywhere where people have 
>> heard of
>> its problems. Anywhere where people have heard from anyone other than 
>> the
>> IRV promoters.
>
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list 
> info
>