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

[Dave Ketchum]

I question adding this collection of paragraphs to the major  
declaration, which seems more aimed at improving public elections.

On Aug 28, 2011, at 2:22 AM, Richard Fobes wrote:

> 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."

I question "two or three" - there is no need to dump losers - we care  
about winners.

Dave Ketchum
>
> "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. ...
> > ...
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for  
> list info