[EM] new simple legal strategy to get IRV

[Clinton Mead]

How did the 2009 Burlington Vermont Mayoral "fail"? It was one of the rare
cases where it didn't elect the Condorcet winner, but unlike plurality, at
least it didn't elect the Condorcet loser out of the three strongest
candidates. IRV in this case gave a more representative result than would
have been the case with plurality. And in almost all cases IRV does this.

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:05 AM, robert bristow-johnson <
rbj at audioimagination.com> wrote:

> On 10/1/15 1:33 PM, Sennet Williams wrote:
>
>>
>>       btw,  We might consider keeping IRV distinguished from RCV.
>>
>
> yes, Sand you might well consider doing that.
>
> might i suggest reading up in Wikipedia (maybe start at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-member_district#Comparison_of_single-member_district_election_methods
> ) and http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Special:AllPages .
>
> Ranked-Choice Voting (that which we do with a Ranked-Order Ballot) is
> *not* the same as IRV despite what apologists at FairVote would suggest.
>
> while IRV may be better than simple plurality voting, it *has* problems
> and *has*, at least once, failed seriously in a governmental election
> (Burlington Vermont Mayoral 2009) which led to its repeal.
>
> there are better methods than IRV, and every time IRV fails, it sullies
> not just IRV but all methods of ranked voting because sometimes ignorant
> voters and dishonest advocates conflate "IRV" with ranked voting.  same
> ballot (or nearly the same), but different methods of evaluating or
> tabulating the ballots to discern whom the majority choice of the
> electorate really is.
>
>
>   I know that locally (in the bay area), four cities voted for "IRV."
>>  Instead, SF and Alameda county  supervisors bought machines that can only
>> count three rankings, and they call it Ranked Choice, and that is inferior
>> to true IRV where only 3 rankings are allowed.  An anti-IRV  Berkeley
>> council member did his own research study that proved that all rankings
>> should be allowed, but the county made the final decision.  Now it should
>> be obvious that he was right, because both the Oakland and SF mayoral
>> elections were so close that the # of expired ballots vastly outnumbered
>> the top three ranked candidates, so there is no way to know which candidate
>> was actually preferred by the most voters.
>>
>
> this has to do with the number of ranking levels available on a ballot
> with finite area on paper.  3 ranking levels when there are 20+ candidates
> is a problem.  a voter might well find out after the election that they
> "threw away their vote" because none of the candidates they ranked ended up
> being one of the top contenders.
>
>   (From my observation, the final winner would not have won either
>> election if all rankings had been allowed.
>>
>>
> because you cannot have infinite area on a paper ballot (and i am still
> for the killing of trees to leave a paper trail for election integrity),
> the only solution to keep the number of candidates from outstripping the
> number of ranking levels are reasonable ballot-access laws.  if your ballot
> has, say, 5 levels of ranking, then the ballot access laws (the number of
> petition signatures needed to get on the ballot) should be sufficiently
> strict to prevent, in a typical election year, more than 5 candidates (plus
> one write-in) on the ballot.
>
> --
>
> r b-j                  rbj at audioimagination.com
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20151009/25e2a58c/attachment.htm>