[Election-Methods] RE : Re: peer-reviewed work that is critical of IRV

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 10:55 AM 9/28/2007, Kevin Venzke wrote:
>I want sources that say IRV is undesirable because of its compromise
>incentive and spoiler problem, and that these create some probability
>of disincentive to nominate third party candidates.
>
>Or, sources that say IRV suffers from a center-squeeze effect like FPP
>does. This is bloody obvious, but who has stated it in print?

Try Robert's Rules of Order, Kevin. FairVote has 
a helpful quotation up from it, until they 
realize just how damaging it might be .... maybe 
I'll be surprised, maybe they will keep it. Get it while it's hot!

Actually, I'm going to quote the material here, 
the introductory material is of course from 
FairVote, "explaining" that preferential voting 
is, they allege, another name for Instant Runoff 
Voting, which is utterly deceptive. It's like 
claiming that someone who notes you could use a 
car to drive to work, if you need to, is "recommending" you buy a Ford.

Good work, Kevin.

>Robert's Rules of Order on Instant Runoff Voting
>Robert's Rules of Order (RRO), the well-known 
>guide to fair procedures, makes the point that 
>an election by a mere plurality may produce an 
>unrepresentative result. It recommends voting 
>methods that can determine a majority winner 
>when electing single-seat offices. At 
>conventions of private organizations, etc., 
>where the electors can cast repeated ballots, 
>RRO prefers a system that allows open ended 
>repeat balloting with no runoff eliminations to 
>finally elect a majority winner. Such a system 
>may be time consuming but can allow a compromise 
>candidate to emerge after a number of ballots. 
>However, in elections where open-ended re-voting 
>is not practical, such as in elections by mail 
>(or governmental elections), instant runoff 
>voting (called "preferential voting" in RRO) is 
>the recommended procedure. In the section 
>detailing the procedure for conducting an 
>instant runoff election RRO states that "It 
>makes possible a more representative result than 
>under a rule that a plurality shall elect..... 
>This type of preferential ballot is preferable to an election by plurality."
>
>The full text is below. (Again, note that the 
>term "preferential voting" is another one for 
>instant runoff voting). It is from:
>
>Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised
>In Chapter XIII §45. 10th edition, 2000, pp. 411-414
>
>§45   VOTING PROCEDURE
>
>Preferential Voting: The term preferential 
>voting refers to any of a number of voting 
>methods by which, on a single ballot when there 
>are more than two possible choices, the second 
>or less-preferred choices of voters can be taken 
>into account if no candidate or proposition 
>attains a majority. While it is more complicated 
>than other methods of voting in common use and 
>is not a substitute for the normal procedure of 
>repeated balloting until a majority is obtained, 
>preferential voting is especially useful and 
>fair in an election by mail if it is impractical 
>to take more than one ballot. In such cases it 
>makes possible a more representative result than 
>under a rule that a plurality shall elect. It 
>can be used only if expressly authorized in the bylaws.
>
>Preferential voting has many variations. One 
>method is described here by way of illustration. 
>On the preferential ballot­for each office to be 
>filled or multiple-choice question to be 
>decided­the voter is asked to indicate the order 
>in which he prefers all the candidates or 
>propositions, placing the numeral 1 beside his 
>first preference, the numeral 2 beside his 
>second preference, and so on for every possible 
>choice. In counting the votes for a given office 
>or question, the ballots are arranged in piles 
>according to the indicated first preferences­one 
>pile for each candidate or proposition. The 
>number of ballots in each pile is then recorded 
>for the tellers’ report. These piles remain 
>identified with the names of the same candidates 
>or propositions throughout the counting 
>procedure until all but one are eliminated as 
>described below. If more than half of the 
>ballots show one candidate or proposition 
>indicated as first choice, that choice has a 
>majority in the ordinary sense and the candidate 
>is elected or the proposition is decided upon. 
>But if there is no such majority, candidates or 
>propositions are eliminated one by one, 
>beginning with the least popular, until one 
>prevails, as follows: The ballots in the 
>thinnest pile­that is, those containing the name 
>designated as first choice by the fewest number 
>of voters­are redistributed into the other piles 
>according to the names marked as second choice 
>on these ballots. The number of ballots in each 
>remaining pile after this distribution is again 
>recorded. If more than half of the ballots are 
>now in one pile, that candidate or proposition 
>is elected or decided upon. If not, the next 
>least popular candidate or proposition is 
>similarly eliminated, by taking the thinnest 
>remaining pile and redistributing its ballots 
>according to their second choices into the other 
>piles, except that, if the name eliminated in 
>the last distribution is indicated as second 
>choice on a ballot, that ballot is placed 
>according to its third choice. Again the number 
>of ballots in each existing pile is recorded, 
>and, if necessary, the process is repeated­by 
>redistributing each time the ballots in the 
>thinnest remaining pile, according to the marked 
>second choice or most-preferred choice among 
>those not yet eliminated­until one pile contains 
>more than half of the ballots, the result being 
>thereby determined. The tellers’ report consists 
>of a table listing all candidates or 
>propositions, with the number of ballots that 
>were in each pile after each successive distribution.
>
>If a ballot having one or more names not marked 
>with any numeral comes up for placement at any 
>stage of the counting and all of its marked 
>names have been eliminated, it should not be 
>placed in any pile, but should be set aside. If 
>at any point two or more candidates or 
>propositions are tied for the least popular 
>position, the ballots in their piles are 
>redistributed in a single step, all of the tied 
>names being treated as eliminated. In the event 
>of a tie in the winning position­which would 
>imply that the elimination process is continued 
>until the ballots are reduced to two or more 
>equal piles­the election should be resolved in 
>favor of the candidate or proposition that was 
>strongest in terms of first choices (by 
>referring to the record of the first distribution).
>
>If more than one person is to be elected to the 
>same type of office­for example, if three 
>members of a board are to be chosen­the voters 
>can indicate their order of preference among the 
>names in a single fist of candidates, just as if 
>only one was to be elected. The counting 
>procedure is the same as described above, except 
>that it is continued until all but the necessary 
>number of candidates have been eliminated (that 
>is, in the example, all but three).
>
>When this or any other system of preferential 
>voting is to be used, the voting and counting 
>procedure must be precisely established in 
>advance and should be prescribed in detail in 
>the bylaws of the organization. The members must 
>be thoroughly instructed as to how to mark the 
>ballot, and should have sufficient understanding 
>of the counting process to enable them to have 
>confidence in the method. Sometimes, for 
>instance, voters decline to indicate a second or 
>other choice, mistakenly believing that such a 
>course increases the chances of their first 
>choice. In fact, it may prevent any candidate 
>from receiving a majority and require the voting 
>to be repeated. The persons selected as tellers 
>must perform their work with particular care.
>
>The system of preferential voting just described 
>should not be used in cases where it is possible 
>to follow the normal procedure of repeated 
>balloting until one candidate or proposition 
>attains a majority. Although this type of 
>preferential ballot is preferable to an election 
>by plurality, it affords less freedom of choice 
>than repeated balloting, because it denies 
>voters the opportunity of basing their second or 
>lesser choices on the results of earlier 
>ballots, and because the candidate or 
>proposition in last place is automatically 
>eliminated and may thus be prevented from becoming a compromise choice.