[EM] Voting reform statement - new draft, please give opinions

[Jameson Quinn]

I appreciate RBJ's analysis of a possible failure mode of approval. It's
true, if Approval were implemented and then repealed, that would be a blow
to voting reform.

However, for me, there are two problems with that.

1. We have ample evidence of voters rejecting IRV - for instance, in the AV
question in the UK. We do not have evidence of which other system (Approval,
Condorcet, or other) is least likely to be rejected. RBJ believes that
Condorcet is better, and therefore safer against repeal, than Approval.
Others might dispute either or both of these contentions, and I don't see
that we have the empirical data to decide.

2. Reform has at least two failure modes. It can be implemented and then
rejected, as RBJ worries; or it can never be implemented in the first place.
Our inability as activists to agree on anything, which would be highlighted
if we can't agree on a consensus statement, accentuates the possibility of
the latter failure.

2a. I'd argue that while we can't know whether approval or Condorcet is
better proof against repeal, we can be pretty sure that Approval is the most
likely to get consensus from theorists. For that, we have not just strong
logical arguments (Approval is the simplest system, and represents a step
towards any better system); we have empirical
evidence<http://www.rangevoting.org/DuBaffy2010_Laslier.pdf>
.

Robert: I would be interested to hear your response to these points

JQ

2011/8/22 robert bristow-johnson <rbj at audioimagination.com>

> On 8/19/11 12:22 PM, Jameson Quinn wrote:
>
>>
>>    These are better than Plurality:
>>
>> Plurality has big problems. Any of these would solve most:
>>
>>        * Approval
>>        * Bucklin
>>
>> / (Majority Judgment)
>>
>>        * Condorcet
>>        * Range
>>        * SODA
>>      Approval is ideal as a first step in voting reform.
>>
>>
>>
> alright.  may i offer some perspective here?  this is a little more of what
> i've been thinking in the past couple of days:  what have we learned from
> (or should be learning from) the ongoing IRV experiment and Fairvote and
> such?  i remember hearing or reading a little concession from some
> knowledgeable IRV advocates (will not mention names) that Condorcet was
> better than IRV and Burlington 2009 sorta epitomized how and why it's
> better.  but they said the same thing, that IRV was a good "first step".
>  something like "let's get Ranked Choice Voting in first and optimize
> later."
>
> now here's the problem: if a voting reform has some anomalous result or
> doesn't exactly deliver on its promise, the reactionary opponents of that
> reform will be happy to point that out and this makes the rest of the
> electorate suspicious or skeptical of the next reform effort when it comes
> up.  in Burlington 2005, we adopted IRV with 65% mandate and it was narrowly
> repealed in 2010 with less than 52%.
>
> the problem is that if Approval is adopted and later disliked (it might not
> be an anomalous result, but might be that voters tire of having to decide
> whether or not to approve of their 2nd-choice candidate) they will be
> disinterested in any second step.  there is a finite number of times that
> voters are willing to try something new.  (see
> http://vtdigger.org/2010/03/**05/vermonters-should-consign-**
> irv-to-the-ash-heap-of-**electoral-history/<http://vtdigger.org/2010/03/05/vermonters-should-consign-irv-to-the-ash-heap-of-electoral-history/>)  i'm afraid that we'll have to wait for another generation (and i hope
> that we continue to have 3 or more competitive parties in Vermont) to
> revisit the issue of a better method than FPTP or TTR.  the anti-IRV crowd
> likes to think that the traditional vote-for-one ballot is handed down by
> God and the other people that voted against IRV (and had voted *for* IRV in
> 2005) just didn't like how it turned out and will be more skeptical of the
> next reform than they were in 2005.
>
> so besides Aspen CO, Cary NC, Pierce Co WA, maybe Ann Arbor MI (can't
> remember who else, Burlington VT, of course), other towns, perhaps Cambridge
> or Mpls/St.P. or SF will also have a problem and revisit the IRV issue, and
> with that, other ranked-choice systems like Condorcet. other methods of
> voting reform get stained (from the POV of traditionalists, and this seems
> to be close to religion for them) by a failure of one method.
>
> so, i think we should learn from FairVote's error(s).  and i think we
> really should be careful and aim for the *final* step, rather than the first
> step.
>
>
>  Gerrymandering and safe seats are also problems. Proportional
>> representation would solve it. There are many good options, including
>> some with geographical aspects, but closed party list is not good.
>>
>
> i'm definitely in favor of mapping algorithms that, given a few parameters
> from humans, sorta "blindly" draw legislative districts according to
> mandated rules (like equal population districts, statewide proportionality
> regarding groups and class of voter, community centered, and competitiveness
> - not to ensure someone's safe seat).
>
> --
>
> r b-j rbj at audioimagination.com
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>
>
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20110822/8821c78a/attachment-0003.htm>