[EM] just to let you know ...

[Juho]

> plurality leader in the initial tally ended up losing


> weak Condorcet compromise in third place


> if Burlington had used Condorcet rules ... there would be even more  
> vociferous calls for repeal


These are all semi-valid concerns in a country that is so used to  
plurality winners and single-party governments (winner without lots  
of / sufficient amount of of first preference support could be a  
"weak" single-party ruler).

I note that also the spoiler effect is a quite well known problem in  
the USA and that the 33% plurality winner would have lost also with  
the old rules (the probability of electing a Republican might be  
bigger with the old rules though). All this together shows that the  
discussion and decision making is probably more abut who makes the  
best and most convincing claims at correct times than about who makes  
the correct and rational claims. There is no one making a rational  
summary of all the arguments. The discussion is more likely to hover  
around various simple claims (that may well be oversimplified, false,  
unclear, intentionally unclear and/or in conflict with each others  
just like the already mentioned claims are, no problem).

Many voters may have interest but not sufficient knowledge and time/ 
interest to draw rational conclusions. Politicians may well drive only  
the short term interests of their own party and themselves (instead of  
the society as a whole) (big parties usually have even rational  
(selfish) reasons). Media may also be mostly interested in short term  
juicy stories. And experts too may have mixed interests. I however  
note that there is always some tendency to find solutions that are  
good in theory and in practice (and tendency to avoid solutions that  
have clearly been "proven wrong"). Decision making will go slightly in  
that (rational, sensible) direction if all the facts are made known  
and especially if clear descriptions and clear justification of them  
are available. That means that despite of the demagogic nature of the  
discussion also rational argumentation does have a place in the  
process. Better to throw the argumentation in although the discussion  
and its outcome may not fully follow the intended logic.

Juho



On Jan 7, 2010, at 1:49 AM, Terry Bouricius wrote:

> 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
>