[EM] The Global Fight For Electoral Justice: A Primer

Fri Dec 23 21:53:57 PST 2016

Hi Rob--

Just a few brief comments.

It isn't that IRV isn't any good. I like IRV, though it's completely
different from the methods that I suggest. IRV isn't bad at all, but it
does have a few problems that make it entirely unsuitable for current
conditions:

*1. Eliminating a compromise who has a majority over everyone:*

When it eliminates a CW compromise that people were counting on, the
reaction is justifiable anger and disappointment. ...as in Burlington.
Obviously, if that's how you're going to react, then you shouldn't
advocate, propose or enact it.

So people should really understand & accept IRV's problem before they
propose it, promote it & vote to enact it. If you don't, then you've got no
one to blame for it but yourself.  ...well almost no one: You've got
FairVote's dishonest promotion of IRV. I've been told that Richie and his
organization assured people in Burlington that there'd be no spoiler
problem. ...and didn't mention IRV's big problem, the one that we've all
been explaining to Richie for the past 30 years.

And then, in Burlington's 2nd IRV election, the CW lost because the
Republicans didn't rank him in 1st place, over their favorite.  The
Republican was a spoiler. The people in Burlington feel that they were lied
to. And you know what? They're right.

Of course, if people figure out (with no help from Richie) how sincere
voting can elect their last choice, then many will bury their favorite to
protect Compromise. I suggest: Don't advocate, propose, promote, or vote
for the enactment of IRV you're going to react to it by burying your
favorite.

IRV is a fine method if people understand and accept the CW-elimination
problem, and have decided in advance that they aren't going to be
favorite-buriers when they have IRV.

These matters should always be explained, as part of any IRV proposal. From
what I heard, that isn't exactly how Richie promotes IRV.

Yes, IRV has a problem, but IRV's worst problem is Rob Richie, and
dishonest promotion of IRV.

In previous discussions here, I've talked about mitigations of IRV's
problem. I won't get into that here, in the interest of brevity.

But I'll just say that, if it appears like those mitigations aren't going
to help you, and that IRV's problem is going to dump on you, then you
definitely don't want IRV.

(If you don't know, and don't mind taking a chance, then there's nothing
wrong with a little gambling.)

*2. Not Precinct-Summable:*
If we had pubic ballot-imaging, then *any* voting system would be secure
against count-fraud. But we don't, and verifiable vote-count is something
that we'll probably never have. So, given the ridiculously questionable
vote-counting, the last thing that we need is a voting-system that makes
count-fraud even easiesr than it already is. That's what IRV would do,
because IRV isn't precinct-summable.

All the precinct's thousands of ballots (not just candidates' vote-totals)
have
to be sent in to central count headquarters, where all the sometimes
millions of ballots have to be counted in one big count, far away from the
people who voted and are interested in the count.  All the worse for an
extended rank-count.

There are plenty of methods that are precinct-summable: Approval, Score,
Bucklin, MAM, MDDA, MDDAsc, and many others.

*3. But the real problem isn't the voting-system:*
Without verifiable vote-counting, the voting system is irrelevant, as is
voting.

People can talk about voting-systems all they want, but no voting system is
going to help. First we have to have verifiable vote-counting. The reliable
way to achieve that, the only one that I've heard of is public
ballot-imaging.

People, including voting-system reform advocates, seem to be astonishingly
trusting in the matter of vote-counting.

Especially now, everyone is floundering around, saying, "What can we do?!"

Well, you could demand, with one consistent insistent voice, verifiable
vote-counting. Really verifiable, like public ballot-imaging. But that will
never happen, so you can kiss-goodbye your hopes for a chance for a better
voting-system to even do any good, if we could get one.

'The other thing to demand, of course, is honest, open, participatory,
agenda-free media. Another thing that we'll never have, ever.

Then why have I spent the last 3.5 to 4 months on voting-systems here?
Because it seems to me that maybe talking about, and maybe even locally
enacting, better voting-systems could show people what democracy would be
like if we ever get it.  Maybe that could make people willing to take the
first step, and demand verifiable vote-counting, & honest media.

By the way, you might say, "How could the mass-media be made  honest?" Of
course they can't. But local NPR FM stations could. They're a small, local
isolatable bit of the media. Tell your NPR station that they'll get no more
money from you if they don't ditch NPR, and start having local-origin
participatory & honest news & commentary.

If they don't, then quite contributing, & start boycotting their business
sponsors.

It's small but it's a start. And, because it's small, it's do-able.

By the way (I've already said this in one or two postings), have you ever
noticed how the sheep seem to be tailor-made for their herders? You'd swear
they were made for eachother. The public fit their owners the way a glove
fits a hand.

It is uncannily reminiscent of Huxley's *Brave New World*. But, in the
nonfictional world, it isn't done by drugs. It was done by evolution.
Evidently there was a time in our species' history during which complete
obedience & gullibility were adaptive.

If you're trying for change & improvement, you're up against millions of
years of evolution.

PT Barnum said that there's a sucker born every minute. That's an
understatement.

W.C. Fields said, "Never give a sucker an even break."  Well, that pretty
much naturally follows, doesn't it? What else an we expect?

Michael Ossipoff

On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Rob Lanphier <robla at robla.net> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Erik Moeller <eloquence at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'm new to this list, though not new to the issues it discusses. I
> wanted to let you know about an article I've just published that's intended
> as a primer around electoral reform issues (written for an American
> audience but with an international perspective):
> >
> > https://medium.com/@xirzon/the-global-fight-for-
> electoral-justice-a-primer-834ad8cb3b75
> >
> > The primer intentionally does not go into detail as to the inner
> workings of each method, but instead is focused on identifying commonality
> and building solidarity between different reform movements around the
> world. My goal was to frame this in a way that helps people get engaged on
> these topics who've previously not been. This is therefore also a
> politically opinionated piece rather than a neutral one that's purely
> focused on the advantages/disadvantages of different voting methods. So,
> plenty to disagree with I'm sure.
> >
> > I worked in some expert feedback beforehand, but if you do see
> minor/major errors, please do let me know and I can still correct them. And
> if this primer is helpful, feel free to use it in your own work; the text
> is in the public domain.
>
> Welcome Erik! [1]
>
> I'll repeat what I wrote to Erik in another forum: thanks for this
> comprehensive, contemporary survey of the current electoral reform
> landscape. I believe electoral reform advocates have a similar problem
> fighting anti-intellectualism as climate change alarmists have. Both
> are ridiculously complex topics fraught with well-meaning infighting
> with some unsatisfying solutions and dangers of unintended
> consequences. This quote of yours really highlights the similarity:
> "It’s easy to get lost in the arguments about which system produces
> better outcomes, and to retreat again into the comfortable status quo
> bias: if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it! But as reformers around the
> world know all too well, the first-past-the-post system is broken, and
> the careful exploration of new frontiers in American democracy is not
> a journey without a destination — it’s a journey towards a more just
> society."
>
> With respect to STV/IRV/RCV, I'm a bit more bullish on Approval
> Voting's prospects than he seems to be.  Living in a city that uses
> IRV leaves me unconvinced about the merits of the system.  That said,
> those of us that consider somethingelse>IRV>FPTP haven't had as much
> success as IRV advocates have had pushing IRV.  It seems to me that
> those of us who prefer somethingelse (e.g. Approval, Range, MAM,
> Schulz) may need to figure out how we can be better allies with IRV
> advocates like FairVote.
>
> Another quote from your article that's worth repeating.  In what seems
> to be a nod to the 2009 Burlington election and subsequent 2010
> repeal[3], you note:
> > When confusion reigns, anti-intellectual arguments may prevail, leading
> to
> > repeals. Still, most election experts agree that even non-proportional
> > ranked-choice voting is a major improvement on first-past-the-post
> > voting. This is why the Center for Election Science [supported Maine’s
> > adoption of ranked-choice voting, rebutted some misconceptions, and
> > offered reasoned criticism][3]. Single Transferable Vote can be seen as
> > the “upgrade path” for ranked-choice voting that helps to achieve
> > proportionality.
>
> I'm eager to read what regular posters to this list think of Erik's
> writeup.
>
> Rob
> [1]: I know Erik well from other contexts, and have only just started
> reading this list closely enough to notice that he subscribed and
> posted.  Oops.
> [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting_in_the_
> United_States#2009_Burlington_results
> [3]: https://electology.org/blog/maine%E2%80%99s-ranked-choice-
> voting-%20it%E2%80%99s-not-plurality
> ----
> 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/20161224/a355789d/attachment-0001.htm>