[EM] IRV and Brown vs. Smallwood

[Don & Cathy Hoffard]

Kathy Dopp Said:
>Let's hope that the Minnesota Supremes have more sense and more
>concern for the principles of the US constitution, than the IRV
>promoters at "Fair" Vote.

I relevant part of the U.S. Constitution is the 14th amendment, and in
particular the Equal Protection Clause.
 
Under GRAY v. SANDERS (1963) the Supreme Court decided:
"a)The Equal Protection Clause requires that ...all who participate in the
election must have an equal vote...."
"d) The conception of political equality from the Declaration of
Independence, to Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, to the Fifteenth,
Seventeenth, and Nineteenth Amendments can mean only one thing
 - one person, one vote." 

One-person one-vote is the foundation of democracy. The question is "does
IRV satisfy this principle"

Let us look first at a proposed city.
The vote could go like this.

Do you wish to incorporate this city.
[  ] Yes
[  ] No

If the electorate votes yes on incorporation then what is you vote for
mayor.
[  ] Smith
[  ] Jones

This type  of election (contingency voting) is done at times.
You only count the votes for mayor if the city is incorporated.
Everyone voter votes once (or twice) and all voters are treated equally.
It assumes that voters are rational, and that the two votes are independent.

For example a voter could say I thought that the incorporation would fail so
I vote for my best friend Smith.
Since it did pass I want to change my vote to Jones, because he is clearly
the better qualified.
To avoid this problem the State would have to have two separate elections.
The U.S. Supreme court has allowed State laws to be subject to a
reasonability standard as long as it did not create a severe burden on the
right to vote.
I doubt that the Supreme Court would see this as violation of one person-one
vote concept.

A more normal example would be:
Vote for one for governor.
[  ] Smith
[  ] Jones

Vote for one for Treasurer.
[  ] Johnson
[  ] Roberts

For example a voter could say at if Smith wins I want to change my vote from
Johnson to Roberts.
Smith is a Republican and I want to have a Democrat (Roberts) as Treasurer
for balance.
It also assumes that voters are rational, and that each office is
independent.
In effect we (the state) do not allowing you to change your vote for
Treasurer contingent who is elected Governor.
You could solve this problem by having "sequential voting", they first vote
for governor then find out the results, and then have another election later
for Treasurer.
It would be very costly for the state to conduct "sequential elections". 
The Supreme Court has stated that this is not a violation of the one
person-one vote concept.

You could also solve the sequential voting problem with a vote as follows:
If Smith is elected Governor then what is your vote for Treasurer.
[  ] Johnson
[  ] Roberts

If Jones is elected Governor then what is your vote for Treasurer.
[  ] Johnson
[  ] Roberts

The State can make a reasonable assumption of rationality and independents
and should not be obligated to cover all the possibilities that would burden
the voter and the state.  

Some people may say that IRV only allows those who voted for a eliminated
candidate to vote twice and the other voters only vote once.
If this were true it would violate the one-person one-vote principle.

Yet me give you an example
Vote for mayor:
We have three candidate running for mayor
Vote for one:
[  ] Smith
[  ] Jones
[  ] Johnson

If Smith has the least number of votes and is eliminated then who would you
vote for.
[  ] Jones
[  ] Johnson

If Jones has the least number of votes and is eliminated then who would you
vote for.
[  ] Smith
[  ] Johnson

If Johnson has the least number of votes and is eliminated then who would
you vote for.
[  ] Smith
[  ] Jones

This is clearly consistent with one-person one-vote.
Every voter votes once and all voters are treated equal.
You could say that each voter is voting twice once in the first part and a
contingency vote in the second part depending on who is eliminated.
This is conceptually the same as IVR method, with one exception. IVR assumes
voters are rational and that the votes are independent.
In this example a voter could vote for Jones on the first part and if Smith
is eliminated then vote for Johnson in the second part.
It is hard to understand the rationality of this kind of vote.

In an actual IRV vote there is the assumption that voters who voted for
Jones (or Johnson) would continue to vote for Jones (or Johnson) if Smith is
eliminated. 
IRV is, instant voting, and it is reasonable to assume that a voter could
not change their mind in an "instant". 
In the second round (runoff) those who voted for Jones vote for Jones, those
who vote for Johnson vote for Johnson and those who voted for Smith vote for
Jones or Johnson.
So EVERYONE votes in the first round and EVERYONE votes in the second round
(after a candidate is eliminated).
IRV is really a type of contingency voting and does not violate the
one-person one-vote.
If contingency voting, with an assumption of rationality and independents,
is legal in the above examples then it should be legal under IRV.
You could make a bigger case for rationality and dependency in the
Governor/Treasure's race above than under IRV voting.
If IRV violates the one-person one-vote principle then all most all voting
in the U.S. would also violate that principle.

Don Hoffard