[EM] Re: preferential voting - rank-order voting?
Dr. Ernie Prabhakar
drernie at radicalcentrism.org
Mon Aug 23 12:14:15 PDT 2004
In response to a California columnist's call for
10386675p-11306421c.html>, I wanted to suggest an overhaul of electoral
policies based on Condorcet-style voting. However, this discussion
seems to indicate that the term 'preferential voting' has way too many
connotations, especially around IRV.
From a users perspective, I think the most salient feature of these
systems is that voters (on the front-end) can list multiple options in
order of preference. How those votes are counted is really a secondary
(back-end) consideration -- what I'd consider an implementation detail,
albeit a crucial one.
Therefore, for purposes of a high-level letter to a newspaper, I'd like
to use the term "rank-order voting." That's more of a front-end view
than the terms 'ranked ballots', which is how the counting system views
them. I would probably still refer to Robert's Rules indirectly, as
One way to improve participation in California's electoral process is
the use of rank-order voting, also called "preferential voting" in
Robert's Rules of Order. This allows voters to rank options in order of
preference, rather than merely picking a single favorite; done
properly, it makes it easier to vote sincerely rather than having to
worry about strategic considerations such as vote-splitting.
That is, I want to present the concept in a way that avoids the IRV vs.
Condorcet discussion for now, but highlights the overall benefits. As
such, is that a reasonably accurate (if incomplete) statement? Any
suggestions on better phrasing?
- Ernie P.
NORMAAL - the Network of Radical Middle Activists and Learners
On Aug 22, 2004, at 1:42 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 07:08:06 -0700 Steve Eppley wrote:
>> Check out the definition of "preferential voting" in the Scott,
>> Foresman book on Robert's Rules of Order.
>> I don't have a copy but my recollection is that it
>> defines preferential voting as any voting method in which the voters
>> express their orders of preference--
>> my words, not theirs--and it offers IRV as one example. Their use of
>> IRV as an example could explain why some people now believe the term
>> is a synonym for IRV.
> Robert's likes repeated balloting much better, but concedes that is
> not always practical.
> They offer IRV (by description, not by name) as an example, and say
> nothing against other preferential methods such as Condorcet.
On Aug 22, 2004, at 1:54 PM, Steve Eppley wrote:
>> Yes. They do point out problems with IRV.
>> In particular, that it can easily defeat the
>> best compromise. It would be nice if someday
>> they discuss a better preference order method.
> 1990 edition was Scott, Foresman.
> 2000 edition is Perseus Publishing and is current - words on
> Preferential look identical to me.
> www.robertsrules.com says there is now a CD-ROM with the rules.
More information about the Election-Methods