[EM] More non-altruistic attacks on IRV usage.

[David L Wetzell]

http://politeaparty.blogspot.com/2011/11/free-and-fair-elections-and-their.html

They're trying to end the use of IRV in SF.
Obviously, they're concerned about non-monotonicity or that the Condorcet
candidate is not guaranteed...

I think that if IRV3/AV3 were used instead, it would be easier to explain
the vote-counting method to folks.

> I think it'd be easier if a two stage approach were used. Like before, let
> folks rank up to three candidates.
>
> Then, in the first stage, count up the number of times each candidate gets
> ranked by voter(if voters ranked the same candidate more than once, it
> would only count once). Publish these results on election night. Make the
> three candidates who get ranked most often be the finalists.
>
> Then, for the second stage, use an instant runoff vote. First, tally the
> number of times the three finalists are the favorite of voters. If one is
> preferred by a majority of voters then (s)he is the winner. Otherwise,
> eliminate the candidate who is preferred by the fewest voters and transfer
> her/his votes as much as possible to the other two candidates. Then, after
> tallying the votes for the two finalists, the one with the most votes wins.
>
> Does that sound simple enuf, D.Eris? It could be done in two days time,
> most of the time...
> dlw


The real issue that prevents electoral reform in the US is marketing, not
electoral analytics.  Electoral analytics, as illustrated by this board,
are very good at exposing attempts to pass bad election reforms for the
wrong reasons.  But I don't think it works in creating a working consensus
on which electoral reforms to push for among activists.  This is
illustrated by how your own "consensus" statement recommends 4 alternatives
to FPTP and waves its hands over IRV.  It also says nothing about the
pragmatic use of PR to make "more local" elections become competitive, to
handicap the cut-throat rivalry between the two major parties and to make
them both more attentive to the issues of minority groups.

So how about it?  Can we try to rewrite the consensus statement to include
an endorsement of IRV3/AV3 and to make it more marketable to #OWS and other
folks?

dlw
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20111122/981b6f3e/attachment-0003.htm>