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

[Jameson Quinn]

2011/8/25 Peter Zbornik <pzbornik at gmail.com>

> Dear all,
>
> please consider including a list of endorsed election methods for
> proportional elections, just as you have done for single winner elections.
> Otherwise the bold statement will just cover one special case in election
> theory - single winner elections.
>

The statement does address proportional methods. Essentially, it endorses
any non-closed-list system. The problem with including a list is that there
are too many good options. I was afraid that even if we explicitly stated
that the list was only meant to be exemplary, not exhaustive, it would be an
invitation for potential statement signers to battle over what should be
included.

So, how about this: when you state your intention to sign, you can mention
one or two PR systems, and any systems which get mentioned twice or more
will be on the exemplary list.

JQ

>
> Furthermore you might consider covering the issues of
> (i) proportional rank orders. For instance when electing the party list
> in primaries, in countries where closed lists are used.
> (ii) proportional rank orders to elect a hierarchy of functions
> proportionally, like board president, vice presidents and other board
> members.
>
> Best regards
> Peter Zborník
>
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 3:06 AM, Richard Fobes <
> ElectionMethods at votefair.org> wrote:
>
>> 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<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<http://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
>>
>> ----
>> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
>> info
>>
>
>
> ----
> 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/20110825/0c6285c8/attachment-0004.htm>