[Election-Methods] A Better Version of IRV? (Terry Bouricius)

Kathy Dopp kathy.dopp at gmail.com
Tue Jul 8 12:48:40 PDT 2008


> Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:36:27 -0400
> From: "Terry Bouricius" <terryb at burlingtontelecom.net>
>
> Dear Kathy Dopp,
>
> Please stop referring to your report on IRV as "peer-reviewed." That is an
> absolutely false statement.

I referred to it as "peer-reviewed" because it was referred to as
"peer-reviewed" by an engineer who has been on more than one of the
IEEE voting system standards groups and because at least half a dozen
PhD computer scientists who are voting system experts reviewed it and
I took virtually all of their suggestions. In addition, Warren Smith
and Abd ul Lomax Rahman from this list contributed heavily.

>
> Peer-reviewed as used in the social sciences (and hard sciences too)
> typically means a blind review process where a journal editor sends a
> draft article to several reviewers whose identity is unknown to the author
> and vice versa.  Typically good journals require that the author at least
> address the weaknesses noted by the reviewers; authors who refuse
> sometimes find their article rejected instead of published.

I did try to address all of the weaknesses which were pointed out to
me by anyone, and I did respond to virtually every point of every
review I was given, as well as doing extensive research and reading on
the topic.

>
> You selectively took comments from a few people who agreed with your
> opinions and derisively dismissed those from experts who pointed out
> errors

That is flatly incorrect. It is BTW delusional to imagine that you (or
anyone) could know all about a research and writing process which you
were not privy to and never asked me about.


(such as your miss-understanding of Arrow's use of the Pareto
> Improvement Criterion.)

There is no mention of Arrow's Pareto criterion in the paper
currently. Perhaps you are referring to an early version of my report?
 I essentially dropped discussion of Arrow's theorem from the paper
after realizing that most of the proofs I read of it were bogus and/or
ill-defined and that to thoroughly understand Arrow's theorem I would
have to read Arrow's original book and spend months reading everything
written on it since then, much of it mathematical nonsense, from what
I could gather after reading some of what was written on it.  It
hardly seemed to be worth that kind of effort.


> Your report has so many errors of fact and
> analysis that any legitimate  journal would require substantial re-writing
> before even considering it.

Terry.  People who have no facts to back up their claims often make
unsubstantiated statements like this without any details. I try to
live by a simple principle: "To be terrific, be specific."  You have
not given one instance of any "errors of fact and analysis" in my
paper, let alone "so many... that any legitimate journal would require
substantial re-writing."

Cheers,

Kathy
>
> Terry Bouricius
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kathy Dopp" <kathy.dopp at gmail.com>
> To: <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 7:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [Election-Methods] A Better Version of IRV?
>
>
>> Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2008 23:36:32 +0000 (GMT)
>> From: fsimmons at pcc.edu
>> Subject: [Election-Methods] A Better Version of IRV?
>> To: election-methods at lists.electorama.com
>> Message-ID: <e4afed032228c.48715700 at pcc.edu>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> There is a lot of momentum behind IRV.  If we cannot stop it, are there
>> some tweaks that would make it more liveable?
>
> Hi Forest.
>
> I think we can stop that madness.  I believe that the LWV, US will no
> longer be seriously considering supporting IRV since my writing a
> report on IRV's flaws - and that other State LWV groups and other
> State legislators where IRV was being considered are stopping their
> push for it.
>
> However, to answer your "if" question ...
>
>> Someone has suggested that a candidate withdrawal option would go a long
>> way towards ameliorating the damage.
>> Here's another suggestion, inspired by what we have learned from
>> Australia's worst problems with their version of IRV:
>> Since IRV satisfies Later No Harm, why not complete the incompletely
>> ranked ballots with the help of the rankings of the ballot's favorite
>> candidate?
>
> But that would still leave the problem of having to count IRV
> elections centrally and alot of the other worst flaws of IRV
> (including its lack of fairness, cost, tendency to promote secret
> electronic vote counting, etc.  Please peruse my report when you have
> a chance (It is only 11 pages plus appendices and endnotes and is
> well-organized to make it easy to read.):
>
> http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/RCV-IRV/InstantRunoffVotingFlaws.pdf
>
>> The unranked candidates would be ranked below the ranked candidates in
>> the order of the ballot of the favorite.
>
> While that might be a slight improvement, the better idea would be the
> one suggested in my paper (I heard it first from Charlie Strauss) that
> also fixes some of the counting problems of IRV elections. I.e. Let
> all the candidates (before election day) pick their own ranked choices
> of other candidates - and not the voters.  This system has many
> advantages over IRV including:
>
> 1.  gives the minor party candidates more political power
>
> 2.  simpler ballots that do not confuse voters - i.e. voters only need
> vote for their top choice
>
> 3.  The RCV ballots can be counted and summed much more easily because
> all the ballots of voters who voted for an eliminated candidate are
> counted the same way - no need for individual ballot examination and
> sorting, etc.  I.e. Only the voters' first choices are needed to be
> summed for each precinct and reported to the central facility as
> always, to know who wins.
>
> 4. Much much easier to manually count and audit.
>
>
>
>> If the candidates were allowed to specify their rankings after they got
>> the partial results, this might be a valuable improvement.
>
> Having the candidates only rank "incompletely ranked" ballots would be
> an election nightmare, but having candidates rank all the other
> candidates and having voters only give their first choice, would work
> better than IRV, but I still think other voting methods are available
> that are superior.
>
> I believe that my email contacts with the LWV and with US Election
> Officials and others who have now been apprised of my report on the
> "17 flaws and 3 benefits of IRV" will have the effect of stopping IRV
> from creating very additional serious problems with US elections.
>
> Look at the mess in San Francisco and WA now.  Most election officials
> will not want to emulate those messes.
>
> The push for manual audits to verify the accuracy of machine counts,
> will make IRV virtually impossible to implement.  Election integrity
> advocates, once they understand all the problems IRV causes, will
> oppose it.
>
> It is amazing to me that anyone would consider supporting IRV when it
> does not even solve the spoiler problem except in one case, and there
> are an amount of possibly subtotals that could be used to count votes
> for each precinct equal to the sum from i = 0 to N-1 of N!/i! where N
> is the number of candidates.
>
> The only reason some people supported IRV initially is because it is a
> very seductive idea until one actually sits down and thinks about all
> the implications of using it.
>
> If you know any legislator or election official who is contemplating
> using IRV, simply attach a copy of my peer-reviewed report on the "17
> flaws and 3 benefits of IRV" to them.  Since I wrote this paper, I
> personally know of at least two US States where legislators have
> changed their minds about supporting IRV and are no longer supporting
> IRV.  If we get my peer-reviewed report on IRV out to all the
> decision-makers, I feel certain we can avert another mess similar to
> the 2002 HAVA bill.
>
> As usual the group Common Cause is causing problems with US election
> systems while raising money to allegedly solve the election problems
> because Common Cause has officially endorsed IRV just like Common
> Cause was instrumental in pushing through the HAVA bill in 2002.  The
> leadership of Common Cause never seems to adequately think about the
> election reform positions they take prior to taking them and yet are
> very slow to drop their bad positions once they take them. Sigh.
>
> Kathy
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Election-Methods mailing list
> Election-Methods at lists.electorama.com
> http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com
>
>
> End of Election-Methods Digest, Vol 49, Issue 13
> ************************************************
>



-- 

Kathy Dopp

The material expressed herein is the informed product of the author
Kathy Dopp's fact-finding and investigative efforts. Dopp is a
Mathematician, Expert in election audit mathematics and procedures; in
exit poll discrepancy analysis; and can be reached at

P.O. Box 680192
Park City, UT 84068
phone 435-658-4657

http://utahcountvotes.org
http://electionmathematics.org
http://electionarchive.org

History of Confidence Election Auditing Development & Overview of
Election Auditing Fundamentals
http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/paper-audits/History-of-Election-Auditing-Development.pdf

Vote Yes on HR5036
http://electionarchive.org/ucvInfo/US/legislation/SummaryFlyer5036.pdf

Voters Have Reason to Worry
http://utahcountvotes.org/UT/UtahCountVotes-ThadHall-Response.pdf

"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body
and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day," wrote
Thomas Jefferson in 1816



More information about the Election-Methods mailing list