[EM] Top Two Runoff versus Instant Top To Runoff

[Bob Richard]

FWS wrote:

 > It was interesting that the IRV organization FairVote
 > was against the measure, even though there was no IRV
 > initiative on the ballot.

I can't speak for FairVote, but I can state my own reasons for being 
against Measure 65 in Oregon, as well as the already-implemented 
Initiative 872 in the State of Washington and a very similar proposal 
being supported by Governor Schwarzenegger in California.

First, while there was no IRV proposal on the ballot along side Measure 
65, there is an active IRV movement in Oregon. It is currently focused 
mainly on local government as opposed to state government and Congress. 
This is consistent with electoral reform strategy in most other places 
in the U.S. Also, ranked choice voting methods are explicitly provided 
for in the state constitution, although there is no enabling legislation,.

Second, and equally important for me, two-round runoff/top-two proposals 
differ greatly in their treatment of political parties. It's possible to 
structure them so parties nominate by convention, caucuses or privately 
run primary. In these cases, each party controls the use of its name by 
the candidates. But it's also possible to structure top-two so the role 
of parties is reduced to various extents.

The top-two system now in effect in Washington gives individual 
candidates the opportunity to call themselves anything they want on the 
ballot (one Republican candidate chose "GOP" as his party label). The 
parties have no say in this. As another example, California Proposition 
62, which was rejected by the voters in 2004, would have allowed each 
party to determine for each election whether candidates registered with 
that party would be identified as such on the ballot and in government 
publications. Parties would have to have made that decision for the 
election as a whole, not on a candidate-by-candidate basis. The current 
California proposal is very similar to Washington. I believe (but 
haven't looked this up), that the proposal voted down in Oregon this 
month, by about 65-35, was also modeled on Washington.

The motivation for all of these proposals have more to do with limiting 
the role of political parties than it does with insuring majority 
support for the winner.

Top-two is better than plurality (and potentially a step toward IRV 
later on) but *only* if it doesn't infringe on the right of parties to 
nominate candidates. I am against Washington's flavor of top-two and was 
against Oregon Measure 65. But if someone puts a top-two proposal on the 
ballot that allows each political party to determine which candidate or 
candidates can use its name, I'd vote for it unless IRV was already on 
the table (as is at least arguably the case in Oregon).

--Bob Richard


fsimmons at pcc.edu wrote:
>
>  
> Kevin,
>  
> I know that you have studied Top Two Runoff more deeply than I have. 
>  
> Here in Oregon measure 65 was defeated recently.  It was a version of 
> top two runoff in which the the first round of the runoff replaced the 
> traditional primaries, i.e. it was cast as one grand open primary for 
> all parties and all voters, from which the top two vote getters 
> advance to the other stage in November.
>  
> It was interesting that the IRV organization FairVote was against the 
> measure, even though there was no IRV initiative on the ballot.
>  
> It seems to me that Top Two Runoff might be more manipulable than the 
> instant version of the same, since voters could vote insincerely in 
> the first round without having to worry about that messing up their 
> choice in the other stage.
>  
> I would be interested in your thoughts on this matter.
>  
> FWS
>
> >
> > Actually some of us will argue that top-two runoff seems likely
> > to have
> > better Condorcet efficiency (in the abstract sense) than IRV. I
> > can see
> > an argument for both sides. But I would agree that they are
> > different
> > systems with different incentives.
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info


-- 
Bob Richard
Marin Ranked Voting
P.O. Box 235
Kentfield, CA 94914-0235
415-256-9393
http://www.marinrankedvoting.org