[EM] Better runoffs
rbj at audioimagination.com
Tue Jul 10 11:19:19 PDT 2012
On 7/10/12 6:51 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> When runoffs are subjected to criterion analysis, one usually
> considers voters to vote in the same order in each round. If they
> prefer A to B in the first round,
now how is this known, without a ranked ballot?
> and A and B remain in the second round, they'll vote A over B in the
> second round.
that is, if nothing changes their mind. during our big IRV slugfest we
had in 2010 (as a consequence of the 2009 IRV election), one of the
points of the opponents of IRV was that they felt they deserved the
right to make up or even change their minds about A and B. even if they
voted for A or B in the first round.
i, of course, felt it is a reasonable requirement that voters make up
their minds about candidates by Election Day and that the downside of
delayed-runoffs exceed this nebulous "freedom to change my vote" that
the opponents touted. (one argument these folks made was that if their
favorite candidate was eliminated in the first round, these voters would
like to know who, of the remaining candidates in the runoff, their
candidate might favor. i still don't see that as a compelling argument
for delayed runoff.)
> This may not necessarily fit reality. Voters may leave or join
> depending on whether the second round is "important" or not, and the
> same for later rounds in exhaustive runoff.
and this can be adequately dealt with using a ranked ballot. as long as
all of the candidates are in the race up to Election Day, if it's
important enough to vote during *any* round, it's important enough to
rank it on a single ballot.
i know there is more to your post, Kristofer, but i have to decode more
of it before i can say anything about it. at least in my experience,
all non-IRV elections were either straight plurality, or had a top-two
runoff. and, besides the problem of greatly reduced turnout for the
runoff, it is not clear that the top-two vote getters should be the
candidates in the runoff. indeed, my argument to Democrats who voted
against IRV (to return us to plurality/runoff) is that the candidate who
should have won the 2009 race (who was the Dem candidate, so we Dems
felt screwed) would *not* have ended up in the delayed runoff, had that
been the law at the time. so voting against IRV and returning to
delayed runoff did nothing to solve that problem.
so i dunno how we do "better" delayed runoffs without using a ranked
ballot in the first round to begin with. and if you do that, then
what's the point (other than allowing voters to change their mind after
r b-jrbj at audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
More information about the Election-Methods