[EM] piling on against IRV

[Jameson Quinn]

2010/5/8 Terry Bouricius <terryb at burlingtontelecom.net>

>  Jameson,
>
> I'll respond to your three points...but understand, I am not on FairVote's
> board, nor an employee (though I am sometimes paid as a consulting policy
> analyst), so the responses are my understanding of FairVote's positions,
> with my own opinions included.
>

Thank you for clarifying. Your response is still much appreciated. I respect
your integrity for facing these implicit criticisms directly, even though
most of them are not even your fault.


>
>  <snip>
> 1. Don't denigrate other solutions to problems you acknowledge. In fact, I
> think you should support them. That means that whenever comparing IRV to
> another reform proposal, make it clear from the outset that the other
> proposal is superior to plurality (except in the very rare cases where it
> isn't).
> <snip>
>
> STV-PR is my primary interest, I believe IRV is an improvement over the
> status quo and a plausible path to PR. I completely agree with Jameson's
> suggestion, and I try to always do this.  I would encourage advocates of
> other methods to do likewise. Compare how FairVote discusses various voting
> methods on its Web site with the way IRV is attacked on the Range Voting
> site, for example.
>

I agree. The rangevoting site should be more explicit about IRV's advantages
over plurality.



> The comparative pieces on Approval, etc. have been responsive to attacks
> against IRV, rather than attempts to undercut any reform effort that
> may arise for Approval Voting.
>
> A primary concern we have come across consistently from average voters when
> presenting election method reforms, is the concern about Later-No-Harm.
> People have some vague concept of Borda rules, and ask whether ranking
> second choices under IRV might hurt their favorite candidate. Our experience
> has shown that this is just about the ONLY election method criterion that
> spontaneously occurs to average voters when learning about new methods. It
> may not be ultimately the most important criterion, but methods that
> violate Later-No-Harm seem to have no hope of adoption, and FairVote isn't
> going to devote resources to futile reforms.
>

No naive voter has a concern about Later No Harm. They have a concern about
the incentives for an obvious strategy - bullet voting. Later no harm is an
attempt to codify these concerns into a strict criterion. In my opinion,
it's a misguided attempt.

For instance, if you had a version of Bucklin which, if multiple candidates
achieved an absolute majority in a single round, broke the "tie" in favor of
the one with the most approvals in round one, that does not satisfy "later
no harm", but I suspect that most voters would consider it
"later-no-harmish" enough.


>
>  When asked about other governmental election method reform ideas I
> mention pros and cons of each and express why I believe some other
> systems are not achievable (often simply due to the fact that there are no
> examples of any other governments using the methods, making officials highly
> reluctant to be the first guinea pig), or are not as good, in my opinion, as
> STV. In fact I often raise Condorcet as a reasonable method (though I also
> state why I think it is unachievable in America at present). As an example,
> in this video  of Rep. Mark Larson speaking on IRV to a workshop at the 2009
> Democracy Fest,
> http://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/programs/instant-runoff-voting-0 at around
> 14:00 minutes, you will note that I was the one who brought up the Condorcet
> concept (Vanilla ice cream was the apparent Condorcet winner of the just
> completed IRV demonstration). I support Condorcet as preferable to
> plurality, and have even helped draft Condorcet legislation.
>
> But experience has convinced me that Condorcet is not a reform that can be
> won. FairVote is seeking to improve election rules NOW, and IRV and PR-STV
> appear to be the only positive voting method reforms that have a real
> prospect for enactment in the foreseeable future. The key factors leading to
> this conclusion are:
> 1. These reforms have been used for governmental elections for over 100
> years.
> 2. These reforms have been adopted, and are being used in the U.S.
> 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 an example, the commission set up in Colorado to examine alternative
> voting methods had a lengthy presentation from Range Voting supporters, but
> they rejected it and favored the single transferable vote algorithm.
>
> Of course, IRV and STV can also be repealed (and have been in some
> jurisdictions). 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.
>

You should not state opinion as fact.


> The repeal had everything to do with the support for the Republican
> plurality winner, a heavy Republican-leaning turnout in March, combined with
> the anti-Mayor Bob Kiss sentiment resulting from a local financial scandal.
> If Bob Kiss had been the Condorcet winner, there STILL would have been the
> same "Keep Voting Simple" repeal. Any method that does not affirm the
> traditional plurality winner as the "rightful" winner (all of the methods
> advocated on the Election Methods list) would be subject to the same repeal
> risk.
>
> I would hope supporters of other reforms would try to enact their preferred
> reform in non-governmental organizations and municipal government elections
> anywhere in the U.S. that is not already engaged in IRV or STV reform, so we
> can get some real world experience with them. FairVote will absolutely NOT
> seek to undercut such reform efforts.
>

Point well taken.

>
>

>
>  <snip>
> 2. Don't lie about the benefits of IRV. For instance, unless full ranking
> is mandatory, IRV does not guarantee a majority. You could say instead that
> it "does a better job of getting a majority" than plurality, or whatever.
>  <snip>
>
> I don't lie about IRV. Some over-simplifications that experts might view as
> "false," that appeared in old FairVote material, are being weeded out. There
> are, of course, common usage issues, which you also seem to be referring to.
> FairVote uses the term "majority winner" in the same way that it is
> generally used by the public in discussing runoff elections. Of course, no
> method can "guarantee" that a majority will like the winner (there may be a
> tie, or simply no candidate that voters even like at all).
>

But there aren't two rounds. I'd be perfectly happy with "guarantees a
majority in the last/decisive round"; that is analagous to "guarantees a
majority in the runoff". But "guarantees a majority in the election" (or
just unadorned) is false.


>
> An absolutist definition of "majority" is never used by anybody, when
> discussing elections in the U.S. So when we use the term "majority" we do
> not mean a majority of people in a jurisdiction, nor a majority of the
> voting age population, nor a majority of registered voters, nor a majority
> of voters who went to the polls, nor a majority of voters that includes
> those who skipped a contest in the first round, nor a majority of voters
> that includes those who skipped the final contest, by staying home in the
> case of a separate runoff, or ranking neither finalist in the case of IRV.
> Just as in a traditional runoff, we mean a majority of those who expressed
> an opinion in the contest between the two finalists. Runoffs always exclude
> from the denominator children, non-registered, non-participating voters, and
> voters who abstain from the question of which of the two finalists is better
> (or less intolerable).  Condorcet enthusiast Robert Bristow-Johnson
> (unintentionally) paraphrased this concept of two-choice majority in his
> recent email, when he wrote: "between any two candidates, there is always
> a majority, unless they tie." The only difference is whether one accepts
> that under a traditional runoff system and IRV the final round is, in fact,
> a contest between "two candidates." Both traditional runoffs and IRV rely on
> this concept of narrowing the field to two finalists, for the purpose of
> finding a majority winner. This is not the only way to achieve this, but a
> standard way, though I would not dispute that Condorcet can ALSO find a
> majority winner in most situations.
>
> In Burlington, there was a separate runoff election in 2009 in a city
> council race (IRV only applied to mayoral races), in which the "majority
> winner" of the runoff got fewer votes in the runoff than the "loser" got in
> the first round, due to a substantial drop-off in participation
> (abstention). The media, text books and the public refer to such winners as
> the "majority winner," even though we have no idea if one of the other
> candidates was in fact the Condorcet winner (without ranked ballots we
> simply don't know). That same video, I mentioned above, has a section
> (starting at 22:30) where Rep. Larson discusses this issue of the definition
> of majority. Election method experts may wish to use a more rigorous
> definition of "majority," but FairVote uses the word the way reporters,
> election officials and the general public use it, and doing so is not lying.
>
>

No. People don't say that runoffs guarantee a majority, they say that they
guarantee a majority in the runoff. The example with Condorcet was also
qualified: "between two candidates". I have no problem with qualified usage.



>  <snip>
> 3. Be open to dialogue with other voting reformers. For instance, don't
> turn off comments on all your blogs and HuffPost pieces, and don't moderate
> out relevant but critical posts on the instantrunoff mailing list. I know
> that it hurts, because there are definitely people with much more of an
> animus against IRV than I have, but the problems in running away from
> dialogue are worse.
>  <snip>
>
> FairVote on its 501-c-3 website wants to start having a greater range of
> information about different voting methods, rather than maintain a narrow
> focus on STV (and IRV). For legislative elections, FairVote clearly favors
> STV, but also provides information on cumulative voting, limited voting and
> list voting, etc. because these are systems that are used in governmental
> elections. FairVote doesn't devote much space to theoretical methods (either
> single seat or multi-seat) that don't have any track record in government
> elections. FairVote has limited resources and time to devote to theoretical
> discussions.  FairVote is focused on improving voting methods now.
>
> As to allowing Blog comments...FairVote has always allowed comments on its
> Web site Blog (and you'll find lots of scathing criticisms there). I suspect
> the reason that comments have been turned off on some outside Blogs is a
> reaction to the misleading and vitriolic attacks of a few rabidly
> anti-reform zealots who are constantly scouring the Internet to post their
> misleading attacks. It is a shame that fair and thoughtful comments become
> the fall-out victims of this, but FairVote does not want to promote the
> voices that are undercutting any serious election method reform. We
> also participates in dialogue on the Election Methods list. Others are free
> to write and submit their own opinion pieces to the Huffington Post, or
> newspapers, or anywhere they wish.
>

The internet is full of people who will post crap. Closing the doors on
discussion is not the answer to this.

Thanks again for your response,
JQ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20100509/ff46da77/attachment-0004.htm>