[EM] Open letter to STAR voting promoters

[robert bristow-johnson]

> On 06/03/2024 8:40 PM EDT Richard, the VoteFair guy <electionmethods at votefair.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> The recent defeat of STAR voting in Eugene triggered a conversation on 
> the r/EndFPTP subreddit in which the comments from you, the promoters of 
> STAR voting, reveal some misunderstandings.
> 
> These misunderstandings easily could lead to expensive or embarrassing 
> mistakes regarding support for, or opposition against, the upcoming 
> statewide Oregon November referendum that will adopt ranked choice 
> voting for some Oregon elections.
> 
...
> 
> Here are the issues I suggest you re-consider more carefully.
> 
...
> 
> * Opposition statements in the voter's pamphlet pointed out the 
> unfairness of score voting during the first step of STAR counting, when 
> a majority-supported candidate can fail to reach the runoff round.

This can happen with STAR for essentially the same reason it can happen with IRV when it's a close 3-way race.  The hypothetical scenario I derived from the Burlington 2009 IRV data demonstrated this.

> Yet your rebuttals about majority support focused on the top-two runoff 
> step, which is not what they were criticizing.

Yes, what we are criticizing is the, for similar reasons, STAR and IRV will not put the Consistent Majority Candidate (the neologism that I am promoting for "Condorcet Winner") into the final runoff.

> 
> * You seem to dismiss the important difference between your 
> single-winner method and a good multi-winner method such as the 
> single-transferable vote (STV).  STV really does increase representation 
> for minorities, women, etc.  In fact STV with three seats per district 
> (as chosen for Portland) guarantees representation for at least 66 
> percent of that district's voters.  Yes, a single-winner method such as 
> STAR or instant-runoff voting (IRV) increases this representation 
> guarantee from zero to 50 percent.

Bottoms-up IRV does not necessarily do that.  It *can* help, but it does not necessarily prevent a 51% polarized majority from all ranking their party candidates 1, 2, 3 and getting all three elected with Bottoms-up IRV.

> But that does not reach the higher level that minorities want,
> and deserve.
> 

Although this confuses some Vermont policy makers I have been in discussion with, they are surprized that I advocacy for Condorcet RCV did not extend to multi-winner elections, where at the moment I support Weighted-Inclusice-Gregory-Method (which might have another term for it), even though it is Hare-ish and does not practically allow for precinct summability.

I consistently point out the difference in nature of three kinds of election that FV promotes RCV as a "one-method-fits-all" solution:

1. Single-winner elections - then Majority Rule is the only way to honor our votes as equal.  There is no proportionality to be had.)  So Condorcet.

2. Multi-winner elections - equal-valued votes would mean Proportional Representation.  So STV ... I still think Weighted Inclusive Gregory Method is the best suited to do that so far.

3. Proportional delegate apportionment for Presidential Primary elections -   probably Bottoms-up STV with the Hare quota, no surplus votes being transferred.  In this case we are looking at the same mathematical problem of apportionment to states of a fixed number of seats to the U.S. House of Representatives.  Here the Huntington-Hill method has been shown to be optimal and has been used in the U.S. for eight decades.  It should be the same method to allocate delegates to presidential candidates according to the vote.

> * Pointing out you have a few minority advocates who support STAR voting 
> is a weak defense against the attacks from the many(!) minority voter 
> advocates in Portland who have been learning about the 
> single-transferable vote (STV).  Remember STV will be used in Portland 
> in November to elect our city councilors.

BTW, FairVote is regularly playing the race card on this issue, too.  They have retained the former Colorado Speaker of the House, a black man, to travel to legislatures and promote IRV with an obvious racial-inclusion appeal.  FairVote shills have tried to use that to shame me when I was speaking in opposition to the same bill that they were promoting.  The disingenuity is disturbing.

> 
> * Your suggestion that ranked choice voting is vulnerable to vote 
> splitting, but STAR voting is not vulnerable to vote splitting, is a 
> lie.

I would use the term "falsehood".

>  This lie undermines your credibility for all your other claims. 

As do those falsehoods coming from FairVote and from CES.  Personally I am less put off by the equal.vote people.

> If you try to define "vote splitting" as something that STAR voting 
> avoids and instant-runoff voting can fail, then you are guilty of the 
> same kind of misrepresentation that comes from the FairVote organization.

Yes.

> Clarification:  Yes, STAR voting is well-designed for use among friends 
> where religious, dietary, etc. concerns can be expressed strongly, and 
> where selfish people can be excluded, and where voting is conducted as a 
> single round of ballot marking and counting.  However the 
> strength-of-expression advantage becomes a disadvantage in governmental 
> elections.

Yup.  If I enthusiastically support Candidate A and you support Candidate B only tepidly, your vote for B should count equally to my vote for A.  My vote for A should not count more than your vote for B, just because my support is more enthusiastic.

> That's because voters get extra influence by exaggerating 
> their ratings, such as not marking any candidates at levels 2 and 3.

This is what I have *always* said about Cardinal systems.  We are partisans when we go to the poll and vote.  Not Olympic figure-skating judges that are charged with the role of objectively rating candidates.  We vote by secret ballot to promote our own political interest(s) and the equality of the effectiveness of our vote ("One person, one vote") is the constraint that makes our voting fair in this context of voting selfishly.  And it goes directly to the inherent weakness of Cardinal systems: 

There is much more content from Richard's post that I could respond to, but I won't here and now.  This is already too long.

--

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

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

.
.
.