[EM] Fwd: Legacy IRV limitations

[Richard Lung]

At large STV elections are far superior to IRV because it will represent 
a much better choice of candidates, (you need only focus on those that 
interest you) and get about 9/10 of first preferences elected. Rather 
than the single member constituency case of prefering the candidate you 
least dislike. Local Scottish IRV by-elections (instead of STV at 
nation-wide elections) hardly differed from FPTP. And Australia general 
elections have been stuck with the Alternative Vote or IRV for a century.

STV was party-monopoly enemy number one (to the Machine) subjected to 
"battering ram" referendums and their propaganda largesse (Cambridge was 
treated to 6 in 16 years). And when even that failed, the state 
legislature forbade any other city or town in the state to have the 
reform! State banning is mentioned by Hoag and Hallett as early as 1937.

STV would give minorities proportional representation, blacks certainly, 
and one or two Communists promoting the rights of sweated New York 
labor. IRV could not give minority representation. A seemingly unlikely 
revulsion of a majority againt Republicans and Democrats would be 
robbing Peter to pay Paul, and not democratically acceptable.

Richard Lung.


On 19/12/2023 13:42, Michael Garman wrote:
> Okay, I’ll concede that I was thinking about the last 30 years or so — 
> what one might call the “FairVote era” but as I didn’t specify I will 
> stand corrected. By and large, those historical repeals were motivated 
> by racism and the Red Scare — opponents feared that STV (and it was 
> STV, not IRV, in most cases) would give Black people and communists 
> political power.
>
> I’d forgotten about Aspen. Fair enough.
>
> Pierce County repealed RCV because the statewide switch to top-two 
> primaries rendered ranked choice general elections obsolete.
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 3:53 AM Michael Ossipoff 
> <email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     Garman says:
>
>     "And Burlington undid their repeal.
>
>     No other jurisdiction in the US has voted to repeal RCV."
>
>
>         Implementations rejected
>
>     Between 1912 and 1930, limited forms of ranked-choice voting
>     (typically with only two rankings^[5]
>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:0-5>)
>     were implemented and subsequently repealed in Florida
>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida>, Indiana
>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana>, Maryland
>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland>, Minnesota
>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota>, and Wisconsin
>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin>. In the 1970s, it was
>     implemented and repealed in Ann Arbor, Michigan
>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Arbor,_Michigan> following the
>     election of the city’s first Black mayor in an RCV election.^[254]
>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:1-254>^[255]
>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-255>
>     More recently, it was adopted and repealed in Pierce County,
>     Washington
>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_County,_Washington>
>     (2006–2009);^[6]
>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:2-6>
>     Burlington, Vermont
>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington,_Vermont>
>     (2005–2010);^[7]
>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:3-7>
>     and Aspen, Colorado
>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspen,_Colorado> (2007–2010).^[8]
>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:4-8>
>     It has since been reinstated in Burlington, and Ann Arbor
>     residents voted to reinstate it as well, with that use likely
>     needing approval from Michigan’s state legislature.^[256]
>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-256>^[257]
>     <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-257>
>
>     Next, Mr. Garman, I'll contact the person who mentioned the
>     conference in which Rob Richie or FairVote promised to stop making
>     the false-claim...which he or they soon resumed making.
>
>      I'll post more details of the incident as soon as I get them.
>
>
>     On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:44 PM Michael Garman
>     <michael.garman at rankthevote.us> wrote:
>
>         And Burlington undid their repeal.
>
>         No other jurisdiction in the US has voted to repeal RCV.
>
>         On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:43 PM Michael Ossipoff
>         <email9648742 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>             [Quote]
>             Republicans were trying to ban RCV before the Alaska
>             election.
>             [/Quote]
>
>             Same thing happened in Burlington. CW eliminated &
>             transfers went away from Rep;publican & toward Progressive.
>
>             ...& there hasn't just been one repeal. I've been told
>             that there have been a fair number of repeals of RCV. When
>             people expect RCV to act like Condorcet, & it doesn't, RCV
>             then has repeal as a built-in feature.
>
>
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - seehttps://electorama.com/em  for list info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20231220/00045eaa/attachment.htm>