[EM] Voting reform statement; a clearer and more inspiring version

[Richard Fobes]

I very much agree with Jameson Quinn that the time has come to write, 
sign, and widely distribute a formal statement of the election-method 
principles that we agree upon. Yet instead of just providing a checklist 
of what we approve, I suggest we take advantage of this opportunity to ...

* ... inspire(!) policymakers, politically active citizens, and 
frustrated voters to take action, and ...

* ... give them a clearly explained declaration they can use as 
ammunition in their battles to implement election-method reforms.

To serve these purposes, I'm boldly suggesting an entirely new wording. 
Keep in mind that one of my professions has been to work as a technical 
writer specializing in translating especially complex technology into 
clear English, and I also have experience writing marketing materials.

This version incorporates the suggestions and refinements already 
discussed, so the revision work already done is not being wasted.

Previously I too was thinking that the other version was too long. 
Ironically this version is even longer. I now realize that the other 
version went into too much detail about subtle issues, and that's what 
made it seem long. In contrast, this version uses the extra words to 
clearly explain fundamental voting concepts that most people do not 
already understand, and to serve the above-listed purposes.

Also I think (or at least hope) that this version better identifies our 
real areas of agreement.

My hope is that either this version, or a merging of this version with 
other versions, will produce a declaration that we can sign with much 
more enthusiasm.

----- The Declaration of Election-Method Experts -----

We, the undersigned election-method experts from around the world, 
unanimously denounce the use of "plurality" voting in elections in which 
there are more than two candidates, and in this declaration we offer 
ready-to-adopt replacement election methods that we agree will reliably 
produce much fairer results.

We agree that there are no perceived political or economic risks 
associated with adopting the election methods recommended here. In fact, 
we believe that improving the fairness of election results will produce 
many political and economic benefits. Some of the benefits we expect 
include reduced voter frustration, reduced government costs (that arise 
from excessive political influence from self-serving special interests), 
wiser use of tax dollars (based on electing problem-solving leaders who 
solve underlying problems that waste money), dramatically increased 
voter turnout because of having meaningful choices, increased compliance 
with laws including taxation laws, and likely increases in widespread 
economic prosperity (arising from increased fairness in the business world).

We use the term "plurality" voting to refer to the commonly used 
counting method in which each voter marks only a single choice on the 
ballot, and the number of marks for each candidate are counted, and the 
candidate with the highest number is regarded as the winner. In some 
nations this method is called "First Past The Post" (and abbreviated 
FPTP). Although this election method produces fair results when there 
are only two candidates, the results are often dramatically unfair when 
this approach is used in elections with three or more candidates.

In spite of its well-known weaknesses, plurality voting is predominantly 
used in most elections in most democratic nations around the world, with 
Australia and New Zealand being notable exceptions. It is also the 
preferred election method in nations that pretend to be democracies, yet 
lack the freedoms and economic benefits of democracy.

Unanimously we agree that the kind of ballot used in plurality voting is 
not appropriate when there are more than two choices. Its deficiency is 
that it does not collect enough preference information from the voters 
in order to always correctly identify the most popular candidate when 
there are more than two candidates.

Unanimously we agree that there are three kinds of ballots that collect 
enough preference information to always, or almost always, correctly 
identify the most popular candidate. The names and descriptions of these 
ballot types are, in alphabetical order:

* Approval ballot, on which a voter marks each candidate who the voter 
approves as an acceptable choice, and leaves unmarked the candidates who 
are not acceptable

* Ranked ballots (or 1-2-3 ballots), on which a voter indicates a first 
choice, and optionally indicates a second choice, and optionally 
indicates additional choices at lower preference levels

* Score ballots, on which a voter assigns a number for each candidate, 
with the most familiar versions of such voting being to rate something 
with 1 to 5 stars or rate a choice with a number from 1 to 10, but any 
range of numbers can be used

The type of ballot used in plurality voting does not have an 
academically recognized name, but the term "single-mark ballot" can be 
used to refer to this primitive ballot type.

Why is the unfairness of plurality voting not better known? Single-mark 
ballots do not collect enough information to reveal the actual 
preferences of voters in elections that have three or more reasonably 
popular candidates. This lack of full preference information makes it 
nearly impossible for anyone to produce clear proof, or even evidence, 
of unfair election results.

Adopting any of the three better ballot types would provide the 
information that is needed for fair results. In addition, for comparison 
purposes, the preferences on the three better ballot types can be 
interpreted to reveal who would have won the election if plurality 
counting had been used. Such comparisons will quickly reveal the 
dramatic unfairness of plurality voting in elections involving three or 
more candidates.

These three better ballot types can be counted in different ways to 
produce different results. As election-method experts we have both 
developed and analyzed many counting methods, and we now agree that 
there are several counting methods that are worth adopting in 
governmental elections.

Four of the counting methods that we agree would produce significantly 
better results compared to plurality voting are, in alphabetical order:

* Approval voting, which uses approval ballots and identifies the 
candidate with the most approval marks as the winner.

* Bucklin voting, which uses ranked ballots, and which initially counts 
only the most-preferred candidate on each ballot, and identifies a 
winner only if that candidate receives a majority of votes, and which 
successively adds consideration for lower-ranked candidates until a 
majority outcome is reached.

* Condorcet methods, which use ranked ballots and pairwise counting to 
compare each candidate with each of the other candidates, with the 
winner being the candidate who is pairwise preferred over each and every 
other candidate. In some elections none of the candidates will win all 
of their pairwise comparisons, so there are variations that resolve 
these cases. These variations, in alphabetical order, are named the 
Condorcet-Kemeny method (or "VoteFair popularity ranking"), the 
Condorcet-Schulze (or "beatpath") method, and the Condorcet-Tideman (or 
"ranked pairs") method. (The word Condorcet is a French name that is 
pronounced "kon-dor-say".)

* Range voting (also known as score voting), which uses score ballots, 
and adds together the scores assigned to each candidate, and identifies 
the winner as the candidate who receives the highest total score.

There is another voting method that is supported by some, but not most, 
of the undersigned election-method experts. It is called "instant-runoff 
voting" (or "IRV" or "the alternative vote"), and it uses ranked 
ballots. The counting method begins by considering each voter's 
highest-ranked choice, and eliminating the candidate with the fewest 
votes, and then shifting the affected ballots to the next-most preferred 
candidate, and repeating this process until a candidate receives a 
majority of votes.

Instant-runoff voting is used in some governmental elections throughout 
the world, and most of us agree that usually the results are an 
improvement over plurality voting. However, many of us either regard the 
degree of improvement as not being significant enough to justify 
adopting this method, or are concerned that its not-always-fair results 
will be associated with ranked ballots rather than with the 
instant-runoff counting method.

Significantly some of the places that have adopted instant-runoff voting 
have later rejected the method and returned to plurality voting. These 
places include Aspen Colorado and Burlington Vermont in the United 
States. The rejections occurred because the method produced clearly 
unfair results, in which the winner would not have been the winner if 
any of the Condorcet methods had been used.

In addition to the four supported methods listed above, we also support 
some combined methods. Specifically we support the use of the Condorcet 
method to identify a "Condorcet winner" (who is pairwise-preferred over 
all the other candidates) and then, if there is no Condorcet winner, we 
support using either instant-runoff voting (IRV) or approval voting to 
resolve the ambiguity and identify a single winner.

In the list of signatures we indicate which voting method each signer 
most strongly prefers.

Yet most of us also agree that we will support the adoption of any of 
the supported methods, namely, in alphabetical order:

* Approval voting

* Bucklin voting

* Any of the Condorcet methods, which are, in alphabetical order:

   * Condorcet-Approval
   * Condorcet-IRV
   * Condorcet-Kemeny
   * Condorcet-Schulze
   * Condorcet-Tideman

* Range voting

(The choice of counting method determines which kind of ballot is needed.)

The Wikipedia articles about these methods provide detailed descriptions 
and characteristics of these methods. In fact, many of us signing this 
statement edit these Wikipedia articles to keep them accurate and 
unbiased. (The academic names for these methods differ from the 
simplified names given here, so the Wikipedia "Voting system" article is 
a good starting article.)

If you have specific questions about election methods, many of us 
participate in the "Election-Methods" forum (at 
http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com), 
and we would be happy to answer your questions about any of these 
methods. [Note: Can we set up a "redirect" to simplify this URL to 
something like www.electorama.com/election-methods?]

So far, all of the above recommendations apply to filling an executive 
(non-legislative) position such as a mayor or governor, where there is a 
single "seat" to be filled.

Different considerations apply if an election fills a legislative seat, 
such as a seat in a legislature, parliament, or U.S. Congress. In 
Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, the typical method 
for filling a legislative seat is to define a district or riding in 
which plurality voting is used to elect one person who is expected to 
represent the citizens in that district or riding.

All of us signing this declaration agree that plurality voting is not 
acceptable as an election method for filling a single district-based or 
riding-based legislative seat.

One way to improve legislative elections is to replace plurality voting 
with one of the above-supported election methods, and most of us support 
making this improvement.

Most of us agree that a better choice would be to adopt an election 
method in which the choice of who wins one seat interacts with who wins 
another equivalent seat in ways that ensure that the overall composition 
of the legislature at least roughly matches the preferences of the 
voters, especially in terms of political-party preferences. However, we 
disagree about which election method best serves this purpose.

Most European nations (but not the United Kingdom) use "proportional 
representation" to match legislative representatives with the 
political-party preferences of the voters. Specifically, when electing 
members of parliament (MPs) by this method, voters not only vote for a 
candidate, but they also indicate their favorite political party. 
Proportional representation then makes adjustments to ensure that the 
percentage of legislative seats filled by members of each party roughly 
matches the percentage of voters who support each party. In other words, 
if 15% of the voters mark the Green Party as their favorite, then 
approximately 15% of the parliamentary seats are filled by Green Party 
politicians.

Proportional representation methods typically use either "open lists" or 
"closed lists" to determine which politicians are selected to fill the 
seats that are "won" by a party. The open-list approach allows voters to 
express preferences about which candidates they prefer for filling their 
party's seats. In the closed-list approach, the political party creates 
the ordered list from which their party's seats are filled, and voters 
do not participate in influencing the closed list.

Almost all of us agree that where proportional representation is used, 
the open-list approach should be used. We oppose the closed-list 
approach because it transfers power to people who are not elected, and 
who cannot easily be removed from their position of power.

In governments where a single legislative representative is elected from 
each district or riding, a political manipulation named "gerrymandering" 
is used to influence the positions of district or riding boundaries. 
Such boundary manipulations affect which political party is favored to 
win the elections in each district or riding, and in turn this affects 
the legislative balance of power between political parties. It also 
reduces voter turnout because the election results are so difficult to 
change through voting.

Unanimously we agree that gerrymandering is unfair. Almost unanimously 
we agree that either better voting methods can be used to make the 
boundary positions much less influential in the balance of power between 
political parties, or that there are fair and impartial ways to choose 
the boundaries. However, we do not agree on which such methods are best, 
so we are not recommending a specific solution to the gerrymandering 
problem.

Overall our highest priority is to stop the use of plurality voting in 
elections that involve three or more choices, and to replace plurality 
voting with one of the alternative election methods recommended here.

We, as election-method experts, have spent the last decade developing 
online resources about election methods, developing software for 
numerous election methods, and participating in online discussions to 
identify which election methods are worth adopting as replacements for 
plurality voting. Now we are sharing our recommendations. We also offer 
to share our deep understanding of election methods with policymakers 
and politically active citizens of any nation, state, province, 
municipality, or political party.

We realize that election-method reforms are unlikely to start with 
people in positions of great power because they have made many 
sacrifices to achieve their power, and they do not want their efforts to 
be undermined.

Therefore we address this statement to you as someone who is aware of 
the benefits that election-method reforms will bring.

If you are a policymaker, we strongly urge you to introduce legislation 
that would adopt one of the election methods we support. If you are 
active in a political party that uses plurality voting, we strongly urge 
you to encourage the use of a better voting method to choose your 
party's candidates, or to choose your party's internally elected 
delegates or representatives. If you are politically active, we strongly 
urge you to tell others about the unfairness of plurality voting, and to 
bring attention to the fairer election methods supported in this 
declaration. If you are a frustrated voter, we strongly urge you to 
learn about one or more of the election methods we support, and then 
tell others what you have learned. And if you are a member of an 
organization that elects officers using plurality voting, we strongly 
urge you to advocate using one of the recommended election methods when 
an election involves more than two candidates.

We, the following election-method experts, agree with the statements 
made in this declaration.

----- End of draft -----

Clarification: I did not use the academic name "preferential ballot" to 
refer to ranked ballots because the term "preferential ballot" deserves 
to win a prize as the most redundant two-word phrase. (The whole point 
of a ballot is to collect preferences!) The alternate name of "1-2-3 
ballot" comes from a Canadian who is promoting election-method reform.

Clarification: I did not include the SODA method because it has not yet 
been fully peer reviewed, it is not explained in Wikipedia (which 
provides further peer reviewing), and it has not been successfully 
tested in actual voting situations. Remember that we hope to get this 
declaration signed by election-method experts who do not participate in 
the Election-Methods forum, and we are recommending these methods for 
use in governmental elections where the risk of "trying something new" 
is not acceptable.

Perspective: As a reminder, recall that this Election Method forum 
started as a spin-off from a general-purpose Elections forum because 
these discussions use too much jargon and mathematics for mainstream 
participation. By including clear, plain-English explanations of 
fundamental election-method concepts in our declaration, we can 
re-connect with those people. Also we can connect with the many other 
people who advocate election-method reform, but who lack our 
election-method expertise. They can use our signed declaration as 
ammunition in their battles against plurality voting.

Finally I'll close with a suggested format for signatures (where the 
third portion indicates affiliation):

Richard Fobes; Portland, Oregon, USA; VoteFair.org; prefers 
Condorcet-Kemeny method