[EM] just to let you know ...

[Terry Bouricius]

Juho,

Actually, the opposition to IRV in Burlington is predominantly focused on 
the complaint that the plurality leader in the initial tally ended up 
losing in the runoff tally. This candidate was actually the Condorcet 
LOSER among the top three candidates (though a fringe candidate with only 
35 votes was the technical Condorcet loser). The complaint from those 
circulating the IRV repeal petition is that there shouldn't be any ranked 
ballots, and that the plurality winner with 33% of the vote in the first 
round (and the essential Condorcet-loser) should have been declared 
elected. There is no momentum toward a Condorcet approach currently. I 
haven't heard more than a couple of people in Burlington suggest that the 
actual Condorcet winner should have won, because he was a weak Condorcet 
compromise in third place in the initial tally. I suspect that if 
Burlington had used Condorcet rules and the candidate in third place in 
the initial tally had been declared elected, there would be even more 
vociferous calls for repeal in favor of plurality or runoffs.

Terry Bouricius


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Juho" <juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk>
To: "EM Methods" <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: [EM] just to let you know ...


In Burlington at least the arguments for Condorcet should be straight
forward. People are already ok with ranked ballot based voting. Many
of them may feel that in the last election the Condorcet winner should
have won. From this point of view Condorcet is just a small
modification that fixes this problem.

Many voters may support going back to the old system since that would
(at least seem to) fix the problem of failing to elect the ("beats
all") Condorcet winner. It would make sense to make them aware that
there are also other ways to solve the problem (= just fix the
tabulation method).

Juho



On Jan 6, 2010, at 7:47 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:

>
>
> Terry and i agree on many things and I am convinced we have a common
> goal: fair elections that represent the will of the electorate and
> do not penalize voters for voting non-strategically.  and we agree
> that the first-past-the-pole (with delayed runoff if no one exceeds
> 40%) is no good, worse than the IRV that was passed in 2005 and used
> twice since.
>
> Terry, we *do* disagree about some things.  factually, it is *not*
> just Republicans.  there are many, many Democrats that have joined
> that "One Person, One Vote" group and, Terry, if IRV is repealed
> this March, it's gonna be because the number of Democrats on that
> side have been underestimated and not taken seriously.
>
> I am against the repeal.  I hope it loses, but only by a whisker.
> If IRV is retained by a great margin, that will reassure IRV
> proponents that there is nothing wrong with it and the pathologies
> will likely be repeated in future elections.  but if it survives by
> just a hair, then maybe the IRV proponents will get the message.
> and maybe in 2011 we can replace it with Condorcet.
>
>
> --
>
> r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Terry Bouricius" [terryb at burlingtontelecom.net]
> Date: 01/06/2010 10:24
> To: "EM" <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>, "robert bristow-
> johnson" <rbj at audioimagination.com>
> Subject: Re: [EM] just to let you know ...
>
> The key fact to understand about the situation in Burlington, is
> that the
> proposal for the repeal of IRV would replace it with a plurality
> system. A
> candidate could win with 40% of the vote. If no candidate reaches 40%
> there would be a runoff election.
>
> Robert Bristow-Johnson and I did a little poking around to see if we
> could
> spark any interest in Condorcet as a better way to go, but the folks
> pushing for repeal of IRV are mainly Republicans who believe that a
> 40%
> plurality rule is their best chance of winning the mayor's office, and
> have no interest in principles of majority, let alone Condorcet
> winners.
>
> Terry Bouricius
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "robert bristow-johnson" <rbj at audioimagination.com>
> To: "EM" <election-methods at lists.electorama.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 11:28 PM
> Subject: [EM] just to let you know ...
>
>
>
> ... that the anti-IRV folks in Burlington Vermont have now officially
> submitted more than sufficient number of signatures to put an IRV
> repeal question on the Town Meeting ballot this coming March.
>
> Both sparks and a little bit of fecal matter is gonna fly in all
> directions now.  One of blogs is at http://7d.blogs.com/blurt/2009/12/
> burlington-residents-seek-repeal-of-instant-runoff-voting.html .
>
> Whereas the discussion here is largely academic, in the town of my
> residence, it's gonna get real.
>
> Feel free to jump in (hopefully with pertinent facts) even if you're
> outa town.
>
> --
>
> r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>
>
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
> list info
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
> list info

----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info