[EM] Voting reform statement

[robert bristow-johnson]

On 8/15/11 9:20 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>
> Or say clearly that you can't sign the statement in any form, and
> we'll stop worrying about you. I want this to get as much support as
> possible, but I know that I'll never get everyone.

i would say that a good political document would be one that points out 
that the traditional vote-for-one ballot (either FPTP or delayed top-two 
runoff) has problems that election reform people have been pointing out 
for many decades.  in fact, every thoughtful voter who wants to vote for 
an independent or a 3rd-party candidate is aware of a problem they need 
to think through ("will I be throwing away my vote?").

the whole idea of Ranked-Choice voting is to relieve the thoughtful 
voter of having to consider strategy when considering voting for a 
potential spoiler.  then voters are discouraged from "wasting" their 
vote and that entrenches the two-party system.  in case someone asks 
"What's wrong with that?", then i recall "Dumb and Dumber" and tell 
people we shouldn't have to be forced to always choose between the two.

now, setting aside Approval voting for the moment, then *any* reform 
must call for a change in the ballot structure.  (Approval requires 
changing the structure only in the directions to voters; that they may 
vote for as many as they like.)  the simplest change or "upgrade" from 
the traditional vote-for-one ballot, is a ranked ballot.

so once this political document calls for Ranked-choice voting, i think 
it would be good to point out how IRV was sorta conceived in the first 
place and that IRV can work pretty good when any independent or a 
3rd-party candidate is far below the two major candidates.  the 
non-major candidate will not be a spoiler with IRV.

but when there are 3 or more viable candidates, where the vote really 
gets split 3 ways, *then* IRV can also fail and has done so in political 
history.  the political document should point out how this can and has 
happened.

> Again, I personally agree with much of what you are saying. Approval
> does force strategic thinking on the voter, more than many other
> options. (That's also true of Range, but not of MJ, so you shouldn't
> generalize to "rating systems".)

what is "MJ"?  isn't some amount of strategic thinking necessary for 
*any* rating system (as opposed to ranked choice)?  you have to turn 
this preference:

      Mother Teresa > Mahatma Gandhi > Joseph Stalin > Satan

into numerical ratings.  that requires more thinking from the voter.

as for positively advocating a specific reform, once we get past the 
traditional ballot and once we realize that IRV will not always deliver 
on its promise (to eliminate the "spoiler problem" and the strategic 
voting that results), if we don't want to complicate the voters' lives 
with an unnecessarily complex ballot, and once we agree that the 
reformed election should turn out no different than the traditional FPTP 
for the case of two candidates, then i think it should be a Condorcet 
method that is advocated.

-- 

r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."