[EM] Populism and Voting Theory

[Raph Frank]

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Brian Olson <bql at bolson.org> wrote:
> That's like asking the oft asked question, 'which candidate is electable?'
> and I HATE that question.
> It's like suggesting that we prematurely compromise and compress our
> election reform advocacy down to a single method to push for when I'd much
> rather say that I support: 1. IRNR, 2. Condorcet, 3. IRV, 4. Approval. And
> sometimes I want a side of PR-STV, redistricting and elimination of bad
> voting machines.

That is a good point, for a group that all accepts plurality is bad,
it is still in effect used for polling purposes.

I would probably go

1: Approval (slightly ahead of condorcet)
1: Condorcet
2: IRNR
3. IRV

I don't think IRNR is sufficiently examined to really know where to
put it though.  It might have serious strategy issues.

Anyway, you would rank PR-STV behind single winner election methods?

I would rate PR-STV as one of, if not the best voting system (and
certainly one of the best system that is actually in use).  It also
has the added advantage that it is also a redistricting reform (or at
least makes redistricting less important).

CPO-STV (or maybe Schulze-STV) are obvious improvements, but with big
costs in complexity.  I do think that vote management is a weakness of
PR-STV (I wonder if Schulze STV would stop parties bothering to try).
Also, the district sizes need to be reasonable (say 5+).  In Ireland,
there are 3.86 seats per constituency on average, which I think is to
low.

Also, if you could make one change, would you implement IRNR or
redistricting reform?  Unfortunately, with extreme gerrymandering, I
think most methods would still elect a member of one of the two
parties.

> In my few years of election reform advocacy, nearly everyone I've talked to
> agrees that 'rankings ballots' or 'ranked choice voting' is a good idea.
> Probably 80-90% of people I talk to I've been able to convince that IRV is
> severely suboptimal (but better than nothing) and that Condorcet methods are
> better. Maybe I should try to write down the elevator pitches/stump
> speechs/good lines/patter that seem to work and put together a pamphlet for
> election reform advocates.

Can't hurt.