[EM] inaccurate Fargo approval voting results

[robert bristow-johnson]

> On 06/08/2024 7:11 PM EDT Bob Richard [lists] <lists001 at robertjrichard.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Using the 2020 city commission election as an example, the City of Fargo reported that there were 18,805 votes cast, but -- according to Evangeline Moore -- doesn't explain where it got this number. Moore finds other records that show that 23,819 ballots were cast in the 22 Fargo precincts in that election.
> 
> My hypothesis is that 18,805 is the number of voters who voted for at least one candidate for city commissioner, in other words the number of voters who didn't abstain from the city commissioner contest. Under this hypothesis, 5,014 voters went to the polls and submitted a ballot but didn't choose anyone for city commissioner. That's 21%, which is reasonable for a down-ballot office in the U.S., where many voters who vote in federal and state contests don't vote in the local contests on the same ballot.
> 
> So, the question is, what is the appropriate denominator for reporting percentages? In plurality elections in the U.S., results are always reported using the smaller denominator -- if you leave a contest blank you are counted as an abstention and excluded from the denominator when reporting percentages.
> 
> I think that Fargo's choice of denominator is at least as defensible as the denominator that Moore wants them to use. At least it is consistent with the way plurality results are always reported.



I think Bob R here is onto the truth.  I realize that this is pedantic, but I think it needs to be said, because when basic definitions are not agreed to, in advance, sometimes disingenuous people will use ambiguity to defend a disingenuous assertion.

Elections are about “enumerating persons” and identifying the choice of the majority of voters. But the numerical and operational meaning of “majority” needs to be considered. An “absolute majority” are more votes than half of all cast, more than the totality of all other alternatives, and a “simple majority” is more than half of votes cast, excluding abstentions.

If 100 ballots are cast in a two candidate single-winner race, 45 for Candidate A, 40 for Candidate B, and 15 expressing no preference between A and B, we say that Candidate A received a simple majority (53% of voters expressing a preference) but not an absolute majority (45%) of the cast ballots.  In this case, the number of losing voters (40) is less than the number of winning voters (45).  Between any two candidates, there is always a simple majority, unless they tie.

Now let's say it's a three candidate single-winner race. with 100 voters: 45 for Candidate A, 40 for Candidate B, and 15 for Candidate C.  Again A gets the plurality and (with FPTP) wins.  But now A has no majority at all, just a plurality.  Here the number of losing voters (55) exceeds the number of winning voters (45).

When a candidate wins with an absolute majority (let's say A), even if all of the voters for the other candidates **and** the abstainers all agree to team up and vote for a single candidate (let's say B), A will still have more votes.  So there is no doubt that A has more voter support than any other candidate.  No argument can exist that favors electing B (or any other losing candidate), if majority rule prevails.

If A has a simple majority, even if all of the voters for other candidates (but *not* the abstainers) team up and vote for B, A will sill have more votes.  But with a simple majority, if all of the voters not voting for A, including the abstainers, team up and vote for B, then B will have more votes than A and some might imagine that A might not have had majority support in that contingency.  But I find that position to be weak.  We should take the abstainers for their word.  If they don't prefer B over A when B could overtake A, it doesn't matter to them whether B is elected or A.  They're not changing their abstention in the either contingencies.

But if A only has a plurality and *not* even a simple majority, it is quite conceivable that all of the non-A voters may just hate A so much that they would all converge their vote for B and they could defeat A.

So, if we do not grant Candidate A the status of unquestionably elected in that three candidate scenario with A, B, and C, when using FPTP, they why should we grant A that status when using RCV or Approval or any other method?  To compare apples to apples, we need the same rules and the same definitions to apply.

In Burlington 2009, 8984 ballots were cast.  In the mayors race, 8 ballots had some problem (or perhaps were an undervote) so that they did not count for any of the 5 candidates or for Write-In.  That is 8976 ballots that were counted for some candidate.  In the IRV final round 4313 were counted for Bob Kiss while 4061 were counted for Kurt Wright, so Bob was elected with a margin of 252 votes.

But even counting it the IRV way, there is no honest way that anyone can claim that Bob got over 50% or any kind of majority of "The Vote".  "The Vote" was 8976.  That is number that goes into the denominator.  4313/8976 is about 48%, not over 50%.  The number of voters voting for the winner is 4313 (counting it the IRV way), but even still, the number of voters voting for a loser is 4663, which is *more* than the number of voters voting for a loser.  The denominator is 8976, but the RCV advocates want to exclude the "exhausted ballots" from the denominator and say that it's 8374, which then they claim Bob got 51.5%.  But that's not comparing apples to apples.

Consider again the election with A, B, C and 100 voters.  If, using FPTP, we say that A got a "plurality" and not either a "simple majority" nor, of course, an "absolute majority", because 55 voters voted for someone other than the winner A, then we must not change the definition with RCV just so that we can claim that "To win an RCV election a candidate must get over 50% of the vote" that claim is false and VPIRG and Better Ballot Vermont had actually made that exact claim in their advertising.

Because we're comparing the virtues of RCV to FPTP, to make a claim like that (as a virtue that exceeds FPTP), we must have a common definition of measure.  In the FPTP case, we don't exclude the C voters from the denominator and say that A got a simple majority of 45 out of 85.  If we don't do that for FPTP, we must not do that for RCV if we're fair and consistent and comparing apples to apples.  Even with RCV, if a 100 voters voted for some candidate (A, B, or C) and A wins with 45 votes, it is not a majority of any kind, even if A got more votes than B.

This is the beginning of a deliberate structure of falsehoods that FairVote and RankTheVote and RCVRC and Better Ballot Wherever proffer.  It is dishonest.  If CES is doing the same thing with Approval, it is also dishonest.  It's all about what number you put in the denominator and if you exclude *any* voters that actually voted for a candidate and did not abstain, then you are disenfranchising those voters.  Even if they voted for a loser, their votes count.  They, at least, get to be counted among the losers in the denominator when Candidate A is elected and the percent of the vote for A is declared.

If more voters voted for a loser than voted for the winner, the winner did not get a majority of the vote, by any voting method.

--

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

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

.
.
.