[Election-Methods] Article about voting methods in Pasadena Weekly

[Chris Benham]

Steve,

I am very strongly of the view that the results of elections should as 
far as possible be determined purely
by voters voting. I hate schemes that encourage (or much worse, force) 
voters to pick some predetermined
ranking and/or have (after the votes have been cast) the machinations of 
candidates as part of the process
of deciding the winner.

I also think that the method should try to give all voters equal power. 
In "VPR", the voters who are also
candidates and so get to "publish a ranking" and force the other voters 
to vote one of those published
rankings obviously have a lot more power than the non-candidate voters.

Further I think it is an excellent principle that all candidates on the 
ballot should have an equal chance
(subject only to voted support of voters) of winning. In VPR candidates 
that are low on other candidates'
published rankings clearly have less chance of winning than the others.



Steve Eppley wrote:

> Several years ago, Mike Alvarez of Caltech pointed out a risk of 
> preference-order voting: Some voters may fail
> to rank needed compromises when many candidates compete. Here's a 
> voting method that solves that problem:


Why is that a problem? How do you justify/explain your use of the word 
"needed"?


> Australia provides a shortcut similar to VPR in many elections: Prior 
> to Election Day, each party publicly ranks the candidates.
> Each voter may either tediously rank the candidates or select a party 
> — effectively voting that party's ranking. Most Australians
> use the shortcut.


The elections referred to here are all multi-winner PR elections. 
Everyone in the Australian PR society (and others in the STV-PR
movement) rightly regard the "shortcut" (called "above-the-line voting") 
as an abomination that should be got rid of. Likewise they
are opposed to compulsion to rank all (or many) of the candidates.

> Voting for a Published Ranking (VPR):
> (1) During the weeks before Election Day, each candidate publishes a 
> ranking of all the candidates.
>
> (2) On Election Day, each voter selects a candidate.
>
> (3) The votes are published. Then the candidates are given a few days 
> to decide whether to withdraw.
>
> (4) Remove the withdrawn candidates from every ranking, so they won't 
> be spoilers. (Assume Obama
> ranked himself on top and Clinton second. Assume Obama withdraws. His 
> ranking will now have Clinton on top.)
>
> (5) Count each voter for the candidate atop the voter's selected 
> candidate's ranking. Elect the candidate with the
> largest count. (Count for Clinton the 33 percent who voted for Obama, 
> since she now tops Obama's ranking. Also
> count for Clinton the 27 percent who voted for her, giving her 60 
> percent. Clinton wins.)
>
>

Yuck!

> (3) The votes are published. Then the candidates are given a few days 
> to decide whether to withdraw. 


Why on earth should candidates be burdened with having to decide that? 
This process is obviously very
prone to corruption and arm-twisting.


> Another advantage: The best compromise candidates would not need as 
> much money to win, since they'd primarily need to
> persuade a small number of other candidates, not a mass of 
> disinterested voters.


Presumably under this scheme a lot more people would want to be 
candidates. Of course we could save a lot of money
and bother by taking it completely out of the hands of "a mass of 
disinterested voters" and just have a "small number"
of people decide who fills the office.


Chris Benham




>Hi,
>
>The current issue of the Pasadena Weekly, also available at 
>www.pasadenaweekly.com, includes an article I wrote.  It shows how 
>spoiling can occur given Instant Runoff (IRV), contrary to the beliefs 
>of most IRV proponents.  It proposes several better methods, including a 
>simple but probably very effective patch for IRV: letting candidates 
>withdraw after the votes are cast.
>
>I had nothing to do with the title & subtitle given the article by the 
>Pasadena Weekly:
>   Robert's Rules for voting
>   Or Would VPR - not - IRV - elections be a better fit for Americans?
>
>Regards,
>Steve
>----
>Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
>  
>