[EM] piling on against IRV

[robert bristow-johnson]

On May 9, 2010, at 3:30 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:

>
>
> 2010/5/9 robert bristow-johnson <rbj at audioimagination.com>
> in comparison, i have seen 3 different TTR elections for City  
> Council in Burlington.  none had more than 55% turnout on runoff day  
> (in comparison to the number of voters that came on the first  
> election day).  the IRV election had 93% of the voters participating  
> in the final round.   93% turnout is a lot better turnout than 55%.   
> every voter that expressed an opinion of at least one of the two  
> candidates that made it to that final round participated in the  
> actual choice of the elected candidate.
>
> This is a good point. But:
>
> at least 38% fewer voters come to the polls on runoff day and get  
> counted with TTR.  that is what our experience is.
>
> You mean "on average" or "so far, at least" or something. There's no  
> "at least" here; in a contentious runoff, it's possible for turnout  
> to increase.

you're correct, i mean "so far, at least".  that is what i meant by  
"what our experience is".  the TTR elections that i have seen had at  
*most* 55% turnout on Runoff Day (as a fraction of the turnout on the  
previous regular Election Day) and i've seen it as low as 50% or 49%  
(i'll have to see if i can find the record at City Hall, that's an  
older election).  so at least 45% that voted on Election Day did not  
participate in the actual election of the person taking office.  and  
for the IRV election, 93% of those who voted on Election Day *did*  
participate in the actual election of the person taking office.  if  
the IRV opponents want to say that IRV "disenfranchised voters", they  
can only claim that it's 7% where 45% were equivalently  
"disenfranchised" with the method they dragged us back to.  i disagree  
with the characterization that those who chose to not participate in  
the runoff were "disenfranchised", but even so, how do they claim they  
made the situation better?

this is all so frustrating because there is the obstinate failure of  
FairVote to recognize the bona fide problems with the IRV method of  
tabulation of the votes (and how the 2009 Burlington election was a  
case study demonstrating these problems), how it *failed* to do what  
it was adopted to do, and on the other side we get this mindless  
claptrap from the IRV opponents (who, for the most part, also conflate  
IRV tabulation method with the ranked ballot).  it's appalling.   
neither side knows what they're talking about.  (admittedly FairVote  
knows, but they're trying to hide from the facts, but there were some  
IRV proponents, including the debate leaders in Burlington, that just  
did not do their homework.  this one debater, from the League of Women  
Voters, repeated the disproven notion that "with IRV you can vote for  
your favorite candidate and not have to be concerned with helping  
elect your least favorite candidate."  that just wasn't true in the  
2009 election.  there was a class of voters that surely found out to  
the contrary and this IRV proponent just did not "get it".  but also  
Kathy Dopp doesn't "get it", either.  she's *far* from "getting it".)

--

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."