[EM] Sequential-Pairwise offensive & defensive strategy?

Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_elmet at t-online.de
Thu Sep 21 15:48:34 PDT 2023

On 9/21/23 23:39, Michael Garman wrote:
> Rob,
>> RCV is already poorly understood.  When I moved to San Francisco in 
>> 2011, I expected to grudgingly like voting in RCV elections, and I 
>> expected to enjoy ranking my choices   What I found instead was that 
>> very few people here understand how votes are counted, and many folks in 
>> my lefty political tribe here take great pride in their ignorance of 
>> math and the inner workings of their electoral system, trusting that the 
>> powers-that-be will count things correctly.
> This claim isn't substantiated by any of the extensive polling on
> the subject. 85%
of Alaska voters reported that it was "simple" after its first use, as 
did at least 93% 
of NYC voters in every racial group. A 2013 survey found that 89% 
<https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1002/naticivirevi.106.1.0025?seq=2> of 
voters in California cities using IRV find it "easy."

That seems to be more about the ranked ballot format than the method, 
though. The poll questions from the first link were, lightly paraphrased:

"Did you receive instructions on how to fill out your ballot?"
"In your opinion, how simple or difficult was it for you to fill out 
your RCV ballot?"
"In the August 16 special election ... did you rank one candidate, two 
candidates or three candidates?"
and a question about primaries.

As I understand Rob, his point is about the mechanism itself, so 
appropriate questions would be more like:

"Have you been informed about how the Ranked Choice Voting tally method 
"In your opinion, how fair is the Ranked Choice Voting tallying method?"

Presumably voters would answer questions about the ranked ballot format 
the same way irrespective of what method was used to count these ranked 
ballots and determine a winner.


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list