[EM] piling on against IRV

[robert bristow-johnson]

On May 9, 2010, at 12:27 AM, Kathy Dopp wrote:

>> From: "Terry Bouricius" <terryb at burlingtontelecom.net>
>> To: "Jameson Quinn" <jameson.quinn at gmail.com>,
>>        <instantrunoff at yahoogroups.com>
> ..
>>
>> STV-PR is my primary interest, I believe IRV is an improvement over  
>> the status quo and a plausible path to PR. I
>
> In truth, IRV and STV are an enormous step *down* from existing
> plurality voting,

...

> IRV/STV also finds majority winners far *less* often than does any
> primary/general or top-two runoff plurality election system, unless
> you apply your deceptive creative new definition of "majority" as not
> a majority of all voters who cast ballots, but of all voters whose
> ballots are not eliminated from consideration by the final counting
> round (some of them after *not* having had all their choices counted
> whenever a subsequent choice was eliminated prior to a higher choice.

so how does delayed TTR solve that problem?


>
> Yes, truly the "later-no-harm" feature of IRV/STV is one of its flaws,
> eliminating the possibility of finding compromise candidates that a
> majority of voters favors more than the elected candidates who can be
> opposed by a majority of voters, as happened, I believe, in
> Burlington, VT where you live.

so now, *specifically* (regarding Burlington 2009) how would have TTR  
solved that?  whether it was IRV or TTR, it's the same two candidates  
in the runoff.  they *both* fail, Kathy.  but the "old" law that has  
now returned as our new law would totally obscure that fact.  so is  
TRR better than IRV because ignorance is bliss?  at least with IRV  
(because it had the ranked ballot which became accessable for public  
examination and counting) we were able to find out that it failed to  
elect the "majority" candidate (by "majority candidate" i mean the  
only candidate that unambiguously holds a majority preference from  
voters compared to any other candidate, this would be the CW, by  
definition).  the method that you celebrate our return to will now  
hide that information.  good show!

>> 3. IRV has an analog (two-round runoff) already used in America,  
>> with which voters are familiar and comfortable (that is elimination  
>> of bottom candidates is deemed appropriate by most voters).
>
> As we all know, top-two runoff is not remotely as bad as IRV/STV

bullshit.  same two candidates in the runoff.  if the same voters  
returned for the 2nd round runoff (fat chance), the same candidate  
would have been elected.  if, because of greatly reduced turnout, the  
other guy was elected, that would have been an even GREATER thwarted  
majority than the guy that IRV elected.  nonetheless, there is no way  
that TTR would have elected the unambiguous majority winner and the  
"traditional" ballots would not have collected enough information that  
we would have even been aware of the fact.

ignorance may be blissful for you, but not for the rest of us.

> are
> re. all the vagaries. Top-two runoff virtually always does find
> majority winners, preserves the voters' right to participate in the
> final election decision, preserves the right to have a positive effect
> on a candidate's chances of winning, preserves local countability and
> auditability, etc.
>
> There is NO comparison between the two methods, except the
> disingenuous one told by Fairytale Vote.

the same two candidates would have ended up in the runoff whether it  
was delayed TTR or IRV.  the delayed TTR would have run the risk of  
electing a candidate with even lower support from the electorate due  
to reduced turnout.  that's how we compare the two methods and i am  
not from Fairytale Vote and i doubt that Rob Ritchie would guess that  
i am very sympathetic with them.

>
>>
>> Of course, IRV and STV can also be repealed (and have been in some  
>> jurisdictions).
>
> Apparently it's been tried and repealed a lot historically in the US,
> including in NYC. Too bad memory is so short that people keep trying
> it, just like war I guess.
>
>
>> However, it is important to understand why. Some people have  
>> suggested that IRV's failure to elect the Condorcet candidate  
>> caused its repeal in Burlington. That is not correct.
>
> That's *your* analysis. In truth both Dems and Repubs opposed it
> because they were in the largest majority of voters when taken
> together,

yeah, but the Dems have less in common with the Repubs than they have  
with the Progs.  that's what the numbers say.  that's why, in the  
final IRV round the vast majority of Montroll votes got transferred to  
Kiss than those that were transferred to Wright.

> who would have both gotten a far better result

NO THEY WOULDN'T!  That is Your Lie.  the interests of the Democrats  
would not have been better served with the method that preceded IRV in  
Burlington (and that we are returning to).  the illegitimate interests  
of some Republicans could have been served better by the old system,  
but only if a greatly reduced turnout in the runoff would have allowed  
their 3rd-place candidate to win.   but the interests of the majority  
of voters *were* poorly served by IRV in comparison to Condorcet and  
we only know that because a ranked ballot was used.  we could not have  
even figured that out if the old "traditional" ballot was used.

> if they'd not
> been fooled by Fairytale Vote (and your own efforts) into thinking
> that IRV/STV finds majority winners and eliminates spoiler candidates.

...

> The Republican acted as the spoiler knocking out the Democrat,
> causing the Progressive to win.

that's true, and returning to the old method does nothing to fix that  
problem.  it only covers it up.  other than the bliss of ignorance,  
what would you suggest to fix that problem?


--

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."