[EM] Burlington versus Aspen in Declaration

[Richard Fobes]

Regarding the Aspen versus Burlington choice, no one else has commented, 
so it will stay unchanged.  Given what I now know, Aspen would have been 
a better choice, but the difference is too subtle for most people to 
understand.

On 4/7/2012 11:12 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
 > ...
 > just to be clear, i am not (yet) a signer. maybe i should be, but i
 > really can't get behind any solution other than a Ranked-Choice voting
 > (Condorcet preferable, IRV maybe acceptable). i really can't get at all
 > behind promoting Score nor Approval nor Asset nor SODA for governmental
 > elections. They're just too messy. (Approval isn't messy, but I don't
 > think it will nor should catch on because of the need for "expressivity"
 > for voters where we want to be able to separate our first and second
 > choices *and* separate our second and last choices.)

I share your preference for ranked ballots and Condorcet methods.  Yet I 
also realize that, as does Jameson, that Approval voting will not get 
used for U.S. Presidential general elections, and presumably the same 
applies for Range voting.

The Declaration has helped me appreciate Approval voting for use when a 
group of people are gathered in person and are making a simple choice, 
such as where to eat dinner, and that made me realize that I would be 
fine with Approval voting being adopted for Presidential _primary_ 
elections, and that qualifies as a governmental election.

As for Score ballots, they are the best choice for the distant future 
when we have a way to count them that is not vulnerable to strategic 
voting.  (Majority Judgment is clever and mathematically appealing, but 
too complex to explain in words.)

Even IRV would be a good choice for a small group of people gathered 
together without access to a computer.

I'm not trying to change your mind about the voting methods.  Rather I'm 
pointing out that I signed because single-mark ballots are so awful that 
any of the methods even mentioned in the Declaration would be a 
significant improvement, and that, in my mind, is what the Declaration says.

Richard Fobes


On 4/7/2012 11:12 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> On 4/8/12 12:00 AM, Richard Fobes wrote:
>> On 4/6/2012 12:45 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>> ...
>>>> Question 5. If you have not signed the Declaration, why?
>>>>
>>>
>>> i had a couple of problems. two that i remember is that it cited the
>>> 2009 Mayoral election in my town, Burlington Vermont, as an example of
>>> the failure of Instant Runoff Voting, and, indeed IRV *did* fail that
>>> year (and has been repealed the following year, by a small margin). but
>>> the reason given for the dissatisfaction of Burlingtonians mentioned in
>>> the declaration is not accurate. the Burlington voters are not as
>>> sophisticated as folks on the election-methods list or otherwise engaged
>>> in election reform. the reason given is more of a reflection of what
>>> persons who study these different methods have for rejecting IRV, but
>>> voters that voted to repeal IRV in Burlington believed (incorrectly,
>>> IMO) that IRV robbed the Plurality winner of his legitimate election.
>>> most of us on this list understand that the root to the failure of IRV
>>> that year was that the Condorcet winner (a.k.a. the "pairwise champion")
>>> was not elected.
>>
>> Should the example in the Declaration be changed from Burlington to
>> Aspen?
> would it be more accurate with Aspen? it says:
>
> "In some elections IRV has prematurely eliminated a candidate who would
> have beaten the actual winner in a runoff election. This disadvantage
> may be why several cities, including Burlington, Vermont, repealed IRV
> and returned to plurality voting."
>
> It doesn't make logical sense. It says that because IRV failed to elect
> the Condorcet winner (the "candidate who would have beaten the actual
> winner in a runoff election") that these cities repealed IRV and
> returned to plurality. Why return to Plurality to address the problem of
> failing to elect the pairwise champion? I would expect that returning to
> Plurality would address the perceived "problem" of failing to elect the
> FPTP winner.
>
> What was the issue with the Aspen election? What year and what race was
> IRV used for, and who got elected? Was it a case where the Condorcet
> winner was not elected and people bitched about that problem or was it
> more like that the Plurality winner was not elected and that was
> perceived as the failure? just curious.
>>
>> This question applies to all signers, not just Robert.
>
> just to be clear, i am not (yet) a signer. maybe i should be, but i
> really can't get behind any solution other than a Ranked-Choice voting
> (Condorcet preferable, IRV maybe acceptable). i really can't get at all
> behind promoting Score nor Approval nor Asset nor SODA for governmental
> elections. They're just too messy. (Approval isn't messy, but I don't
> think it will nor should catch on because of the need for "expressivity"
> for voters where we want to be able to separate our first and second
> choices *and* separate our second and last choices.)
>
>