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

[Richard Fobes]

Here are some additional paragraphs that can be added to our 
declaration. I've written them to cover some important concepts that are 
currently not explained.

--------------- begin new paragraphs --------------

"Roberts Rules of Order contain rules about voting, so any organization 
that has formally adopted these rules, and has not adopted additional 
overriding rules about voting, must ensure compatibility with these 
rules. Roberts Rules of Order wisely require that when an officer is 
elected, the winning candidate must receive a majority of votes. If none 
of the candidates receives a majority on the first round of voting, 
these rules require additional rounds of voting until one of the 
candidates receives a majority. Very significantly the rules specify 
that the candidate with the fewest votes must not be asked to withdraw. 
This means that instant-runoff voting is not compatible with Roberts 
Rules of Order. Also notice that Roberts Rules of Order oppose the use 
of plurality voting."

"In situations that require compatibility with Roberts Rules of Order, 
all of us support the use of any of our supported election methods as a 
way to identify which candidate or candidates should be encouraged to 
withdraw. (Before withdrawing the candidate deserves to be given an 
opportunity to express support for a remaining candidate.)  In this case 
the supported election method is being used to identify the least 
popular candidates instead of the most popular candidate. Therefore all 
the available counts and calculated rankings produced by the supported 
method must be shared. This information gives the candidates, and their 
supporters, clear evidence as to which candidates should withdraw. The 
final round of voting typically would involve either two or three 
candidates, and the final round must use single-mark ballots, and the 
winning candidate must receive a majority of votes."

"Almost all of us signing this declaration recommend that an 
organization formally adopt a rule that specifies that one of our 
supported election methods will be used to elect the organization's 
officers. If there is uncertainly about which supported method to 
choose, the adopted rule can specify that any of the election methods 
supported by this declaration are acceptable for electing the 
organization's officers, and that the current organization's officers 
can choose which of our supported methods will be used in the next 
election."

...

"Here is another way to summarize what we support, and what we oppose. 
If voters only indicate a single, first choice on their ballot, then the 
candidate with the most first-choice votes is not necessarily the most 
popular, and the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is not 
necessarily the least popular."

"A source of confusion for some people is the similarity between getting 
the most votes and getting a majority of votes. Although it is true that 
getting a majority of votes also means getting the most votes, it is not 
true that getting the most votes also implies getting a majority of 
votes. Expressed another way, when there are three or more candidates 
and the candidate with the most first-choice votes does not receive a 
majority of votes, then that means that a majority of voters oppose this 
candidate (as their first choice). To resolve this situation fairly, 
additional preference information must be considered."

--------------- end new paragraphs --------------

If anyone is putting together the pieces I've written, please let me 
know.  Otherwise I'll create a new draft that contains what I've 
written, plus some refinements to accommodate the request that the 
different Condorcet methods be explained separately (not within the main 
list), plus some paragraphs to accommodate the request for statements 
about multiple rounds of voting.

Richard Fobes


On 8/23/2011 9:38 PM, Ralph Suter wrote:
> ...
> 5. Finally, I think the statement could be greatly improved and made
> more interesting, relevant, and compelling to a wider range of readers
> by explaining that alternative voting and representation methods can
> also be beneficially used for a large variety of purposes other than
> general political elections and that different methods are often more
> suitable for some kinds of purposes than for other purposes. Some
> example of other purposes are: US-style primary elections; party
> convention votes; decisions in legislative bodies and committees;
> decisions by informal groups; decisions in meetings of different kinds
> and sizes; uncritical or relatively minor decisions vs. major,
> critically important decisions; opinion polling; TV/radio audience
> voting; provisional ("straw") voting; and choosing organizational board
> members and conference attendees. ...
 > ...