[EM] Coombs method and typical RCV hybrid

[robert bristow-johnson]

> On 01/22/2022 9:21 PM Daniel Carrera <dcarrera at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> That's an excellent point. The theoretical complexity of RP is irrelevant in any real world election. In fact, in real world elections Hare is the one that has a problem because it is not summable.
> 
> Culi, are you familiar with Burlington 2009? They tried Hare / IRV and it failed miserably. There were basically three candidates:
> 
> 1) The plurality winner.
> 2) The obvious Condorcet winner that everyone could live with.

that's overstating it ...

> 3) The dude that IRV picked.
> 
> After IRV gave a nonsensical result, there was a strong pushback from the losers.

strong enough to repeal with a thin majority.

> Since the winner did not have a lot of backing (because... obviously... IRV chose wrong) the IRV system was rejected and Burlington went back to FPTP. But now Burlington is going to review the concept of RCV in an upcoming cycle (I forget when; ask Robert), but this time Robert is there to explain to the politicians that there is a better alternative. If he is successful, we have a real chance that Burlington might choose a Condorcet RCV in the near future.
> 

Unfortunately, Daniel, the Progressive Party pushed the RCV measure through during covid times when we are not able to meet in person in our NPAs (Neighborhood Planning Associations) to really discuss it.  They put it (Hare) on the ballot and it passed 64% to 36% last March.  But in Vermont, any city charter change *must* be approved by the legislature and governor because a city charter has the status of Vermont law.  (Like Burlington in the past passed a charter change to prohibit people carrying firearms into establishments serving alcohol but Vermont, as liberal as it is, is also a hardcore 2nd-Amendment state. That charter change, while approved by the voters of Burlington, went nowhere in the Legislature.)

Anyway, it's in the legislature now.  I am advocating with the House Government Operations Committee and, providentially, one member of that committee is a friend of mine in *my* legislative district that I have helped get elected.  And he read my paper (cited below) and "gets it".  This "getting it" is a kinda hard nut to crack because this sequential rounds STV thing is hard to get people to think past.

I just say (repeatedly) "If a simple majority of voters agree and mark their ballots that Candidate A is a better choice than Candidate B, then Candidate B is not elected."  That is the simple ethic.  FPTP has a simple (but mistaken) ethic: "Vote for one candidate. The candidate with the most votes is elected."  Condorcet has a simple (and correct) ethic.  But Hare RCV has a *procedure* but no ethic *other* than the procedure.  But that is hard to get around because of all the promotion from FairVote.

I think the narrative what is going on in Burlington is detailed well in https://tinyurl.com/2tety9tj in the Conclusion.  My hope is that the Gov. Ops. committee might decline the RCV charter change because there are some other RCV bills for statewide elections in consideration.  I also have the ear of the Secretary of State and the Director of Elections in the SOS office.  They are *very* interested in the property #5 in my paper, which is Precinct Summability.  We're watching Maine and we know that they are having an absolute clusterfuck with statewide RCV which prevents them from announcing a winner for a couple days.  Precinct Summability will allow results to be provisionally announced on the night of election, in addition to the process transparency feature that became *very* interesting to the Director of Elections.

So I am hopeful.  If the Guv Ops declines the RCV charter change and says specifically because they don't want to undo the repeal of IRV in 2010 until we really understand what the fuck is going on, then maybe I can get the Progs in town to listen to me.  But they will not listen otherwise.

--

r b-j . _ . _ . _ . _ rbj at audioimagination.com

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

.
.
.