[Election-Methods] Dopp: 12.“Not all ballots are treated equally”

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

>12. Dopp: “Not all ballots are treated equally
”
>
>This charge reveals a lack of understanding of how IRV works.

Actually, no. It reveals a different perspective.

>  All ballots are treated equally.

The meaning of this is unclear. From one point of 
view, the FairVote claim is true. From another, it is not.

>  Every one has one and only one vote in each 
> round of counting. Just as in a traditional 
> runoff, your ballot counts first for your 
> favorite candidate and continues to count for 
> that candidate as long as he or she has a chance to win.

But it is *not* "just as it is in a traditional 
runoff." Elimination in traditional runoffs is 
usually provisional, the candidates are not 
actually prohibited from winning the runoff. Plus 
every voter in a two-round runoff has the 
opportunity to participate in the runoff.

In an IRV "instant runoff," based on an RCV 
ballot, voters who sincerely rank their three 
preferred candidates cannot participate in the 
instant runoff, unless one of the top two at the 
end is among the three. So IRV does not treat all *voters* equally.

You only get to participate in the real election 
if (1) the two leading candidates are among your 
top three preferences, or (2) you vote insincerely.

Further, many voters have reasonable knowledge of 
only one or two candidates. They do not have 
enough information to intelligently rank 
remaining candidates. But if there is a real 
runoff, typically there are two candidates, one 
of whom will almost certainly win, and the voters 
can study them with much more focus. This, again, 
is mentioned by Robert's Rules as a problem with 
avoiding runoffs with preferential voting.

>Your rankings should be considered as backup 
>choices. Your ballot will only count for one of 
>your lesser preferences if your favorite 
>candidate has been eliminated. Every ballot 
>counts as one vote for your highest ranked 
>candidate who is still in the running in every round of counting.

That's how it works, indeed. FairVote is here 
describing, as it always does, the Later-No-Harm 
criterion as if it were a feature of IRV, when it 
is a bug. In a joint decision that might need to 
be made by neighbors, one who refused to reveal 
what compromises might be acceptable to him would 
properly be considered selfish or churlish. Yet 
Later-No-Harm proposes this as a virtue. Only if 
it has become absolutely clear that you can't get 
your favorite would you let on that something else might be almost as good.

Let me put it this way. If friends used IRV to 
choose what ice cream to buy, they might not 
remain friends. They should use, for simplicity, 
Approval Voting, and I've seen approval used to 
make complex choices in groups that value group 
unity and harmony. It works. And people vote 
sincerely. Generally, in direct democratic 
process, whatever decision is going to be made 
ends up being ratified by an explicit majority 
vote, so all the strategic voting baggage disappears.

>Note that courts have upheld IRV for this very 
>reason and Robert’s Rules of Order recommends it 
>over plurality voting. For quotations from a 
>court decision upholding IRV's equal treatment 
>of ballots, please see <1> below.

He repeated the Robert's Rules comment about 
plurality, because, of course, that's about all 
he can extract from it. I'm not going to comment 
on the courts ruling regarding IRV ballots, for 
several reasons, starting with my view that I 
don't think a constitutional challenge to IRV 
should be sustained. Even though it doesn't treat all ballots equally.

To be continued with:
Dopp: 13:“Costly. 
”