[EM] RCV in SF Mayoral election

[VoteFair]

On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
 > ... She stated “This is the system we are working with. That’s
 > a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck with it.”
 > - insinuating it is not fair.  I was quite bothered to have a Dem in a
 > progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more fair.  ...

This remark does not imply support for first past the post (FPTP, a.k.a 
plurality counting).

There are other ways to count the preference marks on "ranked-choice" 
ballots.  In particular, pairwise counting could be used instead of 
instant-runoff counting, and that is fairer than FPTP.

 > 1. May not elect majority candidate
 > ...
 > Is this common?  This is
 > probably an abnormally close race.  Thoughts?

I doubt the voters would regard this as a close race if they had been 
able to fully rank all the choices.  The 3-choice limitation is 
simplistic, and complicates the counting.

Pairwise counting does not result in any exhausted ballots.  Unmarked 
choices are an indication that the choices are equally disliked.  And 
multiple candidates being marked at the same preference level is also no 
problem.

In other words, the ballots contain enough information that they can be 
counted in other ways, besides instant-runoff counting.  Those alternate 
counting methods could reveal a clearer outcome.

In haste,
Richard Fobes


On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
> Curious to hear people’s thoughts on some issues.
>
> 1. May not elect majority candidate
> In SF, we restrict to 3 choices to simplify the process.  As the vote
> currently stands, 144 votes separate the top two candidates (<0.1%) and
> over 16,000 ballots have been exhausted (all 3 choices eliminated).
> About 9% of voters have been removed from the pool.  It is very possible
> that the result would have shifted if they had the opportunity to rank a
> 4th candidate, and therefore, it is possible that we won’t elect the
> person who truly represents the majority.  Is this common?  This is
> probably an abnormally close race.  Thoughts?
>
> 2. What are your thoughts on London Breed’s response to being asked if
> RCV is fair?  She stated “This is the system we are working with. That’s
> a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck with it.”
> - insinuating it is not fair.  I was quite bothered to have a Dem in a
> progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more fair.  It
> also felt divisive.  If Leno wins, will her supporters feel that
> democracy prevailed, or that the election was stolen?  She also presents
> herself as a minority candidate and it is my understanding that RCV
> gives minority candidates better chances and causes all candidates to be
> more likely to campaign to minority communities.  Am I mistaken?  Are
> there any legitimate arguments that FPTP can be more fair?  Thoughts?
>
> Regards,
> —Chris
>
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
>