[EM] Why Condorcet

[robert bristow-johnson]

On Jul 8, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:

> On Jul 8, 2010, at 1:28 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 7, 2010, at 9:56 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>>> On Jul 6, 2010, at 11:31 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>>> On Jul 6, 2010, at 9:31 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ballots:  Must support write-ins and, perhaps, 3 ranks (do not  
>>>>> need to rank rejects and can do equal ranking).
>>>>
>>>> i think that the number of ranking levels should be as large as  
>>>> the number of candidates (and there should be ballot access laws  
>>>> that make it difficult enough to get on the ballot that no more  
>>>> than maybe 5 candidates normally get on).
>>>
>>> Making getting on the ballot unreasonably difficult affects who  
>>> gets to run, unreasonably - lets don't.
>>
>> there is a question about what is reasonable.
>
> Sure - and debatable.  I would expect strong arguments against a  
> number as small as 5 being an absolute limit.

i am not saying that the number of candidates on the ballot (for a  
single winner) should have an *absolute* limit of 5 or 6. what should  
be fixed is the number of ranking levels (and real-estate limits that  
to about 5 or 6 levels) and the number of signatures needed on a  
petition to get on the ballot should be determined in advance in law.   
since the number of candidates vs. the number of required signatures  
is a strictly decreasing function and an empirically determined  
function, i *am* suggesting that legislatures adjust that number of  
required signatures in such a way to *normally* limit the number of  
candidates to about a half dozen.  maybe on some particular year, the  
number of candidates will be as high as 10 (and there are still only 5  
ranking levels).  maybe on another year the number of candidates is  
only 3 (in which there could be at least 2 Write-Ins, both  
independently rankable).

i dunno, it's just a guess, but what we *don't* want (well, speaking  
for myself) is a situation where if happens every election that there  
are 20 or 30 or more candidates and the number of ranking levels is  
stuck at 5.  then the anti-IRVers will complain against Condorcet with  
the same bogus "disenfranchisement" complaint.  Disenfranchisement  
*is* bogus, but it is true that unlike Burlington 2009 (in which  
voters who did not participate in the IRV final round *chose* not to)  
there will be voters who were unable to register a preference between  
the two or three leaders because they ran out of ranking levels.  that  
*is* a problem, but it is not properly called "disenfranchisement".

to be fair, the rules of the game must be determined and promulgated  
in advance.  the number of signatures required for ballot access must  
be fixed in advance.  the number of ranking levels on the ballot must  
be fixed in advance.  but the number of candidates that make it on to  
the ballot may vary from term to term.  that's okay.  that's what we  
would expect.


>>> No real need for a ranking level for every candidate.  Especially  
>>> when there are many candidates voters will happily use some equal  
>>> ranks and will not bother to rank those they see as not worth  
>>> ranking.
>>
>> well, one of the complaints of the anti-IRVers (that applied more  
>> to San Francisco and not to Burlington Vermont) was that, because  
>> the number of candidates was much larger than the number of ranks,  
>> then voters could not express a vote regarding every candidate.  if  
>> the candidates that ended up leading the race (getting to the final  
>> and semi-final rounds) were not any that the voter ranked (due  
>> partly to the too few ranking levels), the claim was that this  
>> voter was "disenfranchised".  i have her kill-filed, but i'm sure  
>> Kathy Dopp can fill you in on what this sentiment is all about.   
>> the funny thing is that, while this "feature" of IRV (in SF) was a  
>> major complaint of the IRV opponents, what the alternative offered  
>> (the return to the affirmative vote for a single candidate and FPTP  
>> and/or delayed runoff) was even more so a "disenfranchisement" in  
>> that very same manner.  it is equivalent to a ranked-order ballot  
>> but with only one ranking level deep.
>
> I started this thread to promote understanding and use of  
> Condorcet.  A big part of that is understanding IRV's limitations.
>
> That anti-IRVers complained about limits on ranking is only a detail  
> - that IRV inspires voters to want to rank more is part of that  
> debate.

but they'll use that *same* complaint about Condorcet if the  
conditions that brought about the complaint remain with Condorcet.   
now, i don't believe that we should have a paper ballot with 20  
ranking levels, so if there are enough levels (and i don't think that  
3 is enough), there is little to complain about.  how many weird and  
independent candidates are people going to rank above the major party  
candidates who are most likely to be viable?


>> also, sometimes a voter wants to bury a candidate.  how does one  
>> vote negatively against a candidate when they cannot rank all the  
>> other candidates above that one?  it's okay that all candidates not  
>> ranked by a particular voters are tied for last place on their  
>> ballots if that voter can lift all other candidates, not deemed the  
>> absolute worst, above that level.
>>
> Another IRV topic.

no, it's a Preferential Voting (1,2,3...) topic.  one reason we like  
the ranked ballot is to allow expressivity.  if Satan and Hitler and  
Stalin are all on the ballot (along with some good folks), i might  
want to rank Hitler above Satan.  i might want to rank anybody and  
everybody above Satan.  some rejects are worse than other rejects and  
there may be a need to rank them unequally.

it would be complicated, but maybe a "bipolar" ranking system with -1  
and -2 and -3 for levels (these guys would be ranked below any  
unranked candidate of whom the voter has a neutral opinion about)  
would be the answer, but the "Keep Voting Simple" folks would complain  
about that.


>> similarly to voter registration and ballot access to voters being a  
>> political question, i think that ballot access to candidates is  
>> also a political question.  reasonable people can disagree, but i  
>> see a future with political parties to be inevitable.  it doesn't  
>> mean that we should have only two viable parties nor that  
>> independent candidates cannot credibly run for office.
>
> Agreed.  Not clear to me why IRV was so limited, but Condorcet has  
> no need for such limits.

IRV wasn't so limited in that manner.  indeed these were the reasons  
for why we adopted IRV in Burlington in 2005.  (we have a serious Prog  
Party that proffers candidates that actually win office and credible  
independents that sometimes win.)  the problem with IRV is *not* that  
it supported only 2 viable parties nor handicapped independents.

>> but any candidate that deserves the ink and real estate on the  
>> ballot for their name, should be required to demonstrate some level  
>> of electoral support to get there.  if the race is broad enough (a  
>> national election in a large country), some candidate need not be  
>> on the ballot for every state or district within that nation, if  
>> the candidate cannot satisfy the qualifying threshold (in petition  
>> signatures) for every district.  but whatever the size of the  
>> election venue, be it a city ward, entire city, legislative  
>> district, statewide, whatever, there should be a minimum number of  
>> signatures required for ballot access that is approximately  
>> proportional to the voter population of that venue.  that constant  
>> of proportionality would have to be experimentally and empirically  
>> determined, but it should be made high enough to reduce the  
>> candidate field to about half dozen meaningful candidates.
>
> Worthy debate, but I would expect strong arguments for more than a  
> "half dozen".

resources are limited.  it's not just the real estate on the paper  
ballot, it's the span of attention and vision of the voter.  this is  
*my* political opinion, but i feel sorta assaulted when i see a ballot  
with 20+ candidates.  it's something i expect when there are 6 winners  
(we have that in our state senate race where i live), but i  
*certainly* do not want to see that for Governor or President or the  
state or U.S. Representative or the particular U.S. Senator that is up  
for election.  it's icky to have *soooo* many candidates (most who are  
not serious nor viable) on the ballot for a single-winner seat.

politically, i am in favor of very little restriction of voter access  
to the polls (i like Motor-Voter laws and i *hate* these official  
canvassing of residences that seek to strike voters from the rolls),  
but more restrictive ballot access for candidates.  candidates that  
get on the ballot should demonstrate some level of *serious* electoral  
support just to get on the ballot.  and, if the number of ranking  
levels is much less than the number of candidates, that has the same  
qualitative problem as the traditional "vote-for-one" ballot.  it  
doesn't collect enough information from the voters by missing the  
rankings of candidates that don't fit on the number of levels allowed  
on the ballot.  since 5 or 6 ranking levels seems feasible and  
practical, then i think that legislation that attempts to target the  
number of candidates to about that many (so that every candidate can  
be ranked) is also reasonable.

--

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."