<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/5/8 Terry Bouricius <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:terryb@burlingtontelecom.net">terryb@burlingtontelecom.net</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div>
<div>Jameson,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I'll respond to your three points...but understand, I am not on FairVote's
board, nor an employee (though I am sometimes paid as a consulting policy
analyst), so the responses are my understanding of FairVote's positions, with my
own opinions included.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thank you for clarifying. Your response is still much appreciated. I respect your integrity for facing these implicit criticisms directly, even though most of them are not even your fault.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff"><div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div><snip></div><div class="im">
<div>1. Don't denigrate other solutions to problems you acknowledge. In fact, I
think you should support them. That means that whenever comparing IRV to another
reform proposal, make it clear from the outset that the other proposal is
superior to plurality (except in the <span style="font-style:italic">very</span> rare cases where it isn't).</div>
</div><div><snip></div>
<div> </div>
<div>STV-PR is my primary interest, I believe IRV is an improvement over the
status quo and a plausible path to PR. I completely agree with Jameson's
suggestion, and I try to always do this. I would encourage advocates of
other methods to do likewise. Compare how FairVote discusses various
voting methods on its Web site with the way IRV is attacked on the Range
Voting site, for example. </div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree. The rangevoting site should be more explicit about IRV's advantages over plurality.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff"><div><div><div>The comparative pieces on Approval, etc. have been
responsive to attacks against IRV, rather than attempts to undercut any reform
effort that may arise for Approval Voting. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>A primary concern we have come across consistently from average
voters when presenting election method reforms, is the concern about
Later-No-Harm. People have some vague concept of Borda rules, and ask whether
ranking second choices under IRV might hurt their favorite candidate. Our
experience has shown that this is just about the ONLY election method criterion
that spontaneously occurs to average voters when learning about new methods. It
may not be ultimately the most important criterion, but methods that
violate Later-No-Harm seem to have no hope of adoption, and FairVote isn't
going to devote resources to futile reforms.</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No naive voter has a concern about Later No Harm. They have a concern about the incentives for an obvious strategy - bullet voting. Later no harm is an attempt to codify these concerns into a strict criterion. In my opinion, it's a misguided attempt.</div>
<div><br></div><div>For instance, if you had a version of Bucklin which, if multiple candidates achieved an absolute majority in a single round, broke the "tie" in favor of the one with the most approvals in round one, that does not satisfy "later no harm", but I suspect that most voters would consider it "later-no-harmish" enough.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff"><div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>When asked about other governmental election method reform ideas I mention
pros and cons of each and express why I believe some other systems are
not achievable (often simply due to the fact that there are no
examples of any other governments using the methods, making officials highly
reluctant to be the first guinea pig), or are not as good, in my opinion,
as STV. In fact I often raise Condorcet as a reasonable method (though I
also state why I think it is unachievable in America at present). As an example,
in this video of Rep. Mark Larson speaking on IRV to a workshop
at the 2009 Democracy Fest, <a>http://www.cctv.org/watch-tv/programs/instant-runoff-voting-0</a> at
around 14:00 minutes, you will note that I was the one who brought up the
Condorcet concept (Vanilla ice cream was the apparent Condorcet winner of the
just completed IRV demonstration). I support Condorcet as preferable to
plurality, and have even helped draft Condorcet legislation. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>But experience has convinced me that Condorcet is not a reform that can be
won. FairVote is seeking to improve election rules NOW, and IRV and PR-STV
appear to be the only positive voting method reforms that have a real prospect
for enactment in the foreseeable future. The key factors leading to this
conclusion are: </div>
<div>1. These reforms have been used for governmental elections for over 100
years. </div>
<div>2. These reforms have been adopted, and are being used in the U.S.
</div>
<div>3. IRV has an analog (two-round runoff) already used in America, with which
voters are familiar and comfortable (that is elimination of bottom candidates is
deemed appropriate by most voters). </div>
<div>As an example, the commission set up in Colorado to examine alternative
voting methods had a lengthy presentation from Range Voting supporters, but they
rejected it and favored the single transferable vote algorithm.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Of course, IRV and STV can also be repealed (and have been in some
jurisdictions). However, it is important to understand why. Some people have
suggested that IRV's failure to elect the Condorcet candidate caused its repeal
in Burlington. That is not correct. </div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You should not state opinion as fact.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff"><div><div><div><div>The repeal had everything to do with the
support for the Republican plurality winner, a heavy Republican-leaning turnout
in March, combined with the anti-Mayor Bob Kiss sentiment resulting
from a local financial scandal. If Bob Kiss had been the Condorcet winner, there
STILL would have been the same "Keep Voting Simple" repeal. Any method that does
not affirm the traditional plurality winner as the "rightful" winner (all
of the methods advocated on the Election Methods list) would be subject to the
same repeal risk. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>I would hope supporters of other reforms would try to enact their preferred
reform in non-governmental organizations and municipal government elections
anywhere in the U.S. that is not already engaged in IRV or STV reform, so we can
get some real world experience with them. FairVote will absolutely NOT seek to
undercut such reform efforts.</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Point well taken. </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><div><div><div> </div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff"><div>
<div><br> </div>
<div>
<div><snip></div>
<div>2. Don't lie about the benefits of IRV. For instance, unless full ranking
is mandatory, IRV does not guarantee a majority. You could say instead that it
"does a better job of getting a majority" than plurality, or whatever.</div>
<div>
<div><snip></div>
<div> </div>
<div>I don't lie about IRV. Some over-simplifications that experts might view as
"false," that appeared in old FairVote material, are being weeded out. There
are, of course, common usage issues, which you also seem to be referring to.
FairVote uses the term "majority winner" in the same way that it is generally
used by the public in discussing runoff elections. Of course, no method can
"guarantee" that a majority will like the winner (there may be a tie, or simply
no candidate that voters even like at all).</div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>But there aren't two rounds. I'd be perfectly happy with "guarantees a majority in the last/decisive round"; that is analagous to "guarantees a majority in the runoff". But "guarantees a majority in the election" (or just unadorned) is false.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff"><div><div><div><div> </div></div>
<div><br>
<div>An absolutist definition of "majority" is never used by anybody, when
discussing elections in the U.S. So when we use the term "majority" we do not
mean a majority of people in a jurisdiction, nor a majority of the voting age
population, nor a majority of registered voters, nor a majority of voters who
went to the polls, nor a majority of voters that includes those who skipped a
contest in the first round, nor a majority of voters that includes those who
skipped the final contest, by staying home in the case of a separate runoff, or
ranking neither finalist in the case of IRV. Just as in a traditional runoff, we
mean a majority of those who expressed an opinion in the contest between the two
finalists. Runoffs always exclude from the denominator children, non-registered,
non-participating voters, and voters who abstain from the question of which
of the two finalists is better (or less intolerable). Condorcet enthusiast
Robert Bristow-Johnson (unintentionally) paraphrased this concept of two-choice
majority in his recent email, when he wrote: "between any two candidates, there
is always a majority, unless they tie." The only difference is whether one
accepts that under a traditional runoff system and IRV the final round is,
in fact, a contest between "two candidates." Both traditional runoffs and IRV
rely on this concept of narrowing the field to two finalists, for the
purpose of finding a majority winner. This is not the only way to achieve this,
but a standard way, though I would not dispute that Condorcet can ALSO find a
majority winner in most situations. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>In Burlington, there was a separate runoff election in 2009 in a city
council race (IRV only applied to mayoral races), in which the "majority winner"
of the runoff got fewer votes in the runoff than the "loser" got in the first
round, due to a substantial drop-off in participation (abstention). The
media, text books and the public refer to such winners as the "majority
winner," even though we have no idea if one of the other candidates was in fact
the Condorcet winner (without ranked ballots we simply don't know). That same
video, I mentioned above, has a section (starting at 22:30) where Rep.
Larson discusses this issue of the definition of majority. Election method
experts may wish to use a more rigorous definition of "majority," but FairVote
uses the word the way reporters, election officials and the general public use
it, and doing so is not lying.</div>
<div> </div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No. People don't say that runoffs guarantee a majority, they say that they guarantee a majority in the runoff. The example with Condorcet was also qualified: "between two candidates". I have no problem with qualified usage.</div>
<div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff"><div><div><div>
<div>
<div><snip></div></div><div class="im">
<div>3. Be open to dialogue with other voting reformers. For instance, don't
turn off comments on all your blogs and HuffPost pieces, and don't moderate out
relevant but critical posts on the instantrunoff mailing list. I know that it
hurts, because there are definitely people with much more of an animus against
IRV than I have, but the problems in running away from dialogue are worse.</div>
</div><div>
<div><snip></div>
<div> </div>
<div>FairVote on its 501-c-3 website wants to start having a greater range of
information about different voting methods, rather than maintain a narrow focus
on STV (and IRV). For legislative elections, FairVote clearly favors STV,
but also provides information on cumulative voting, limited voting and list
voting, etc. because these are systems that are used in governmental elections.
FairVote doesn't devote much space to theoretical methods (either single seat or
multi-seat) that don't have any track record in government elections. FairVote
has limited resources and time to devote to theoretical discussions.
FairVote is focused on improving voting methods now. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>As to allowing Blog comments...FairVote has always allowed comments on its
Web site Blog (and you'll find lots of scathing criticisms there). I suspect the
reason that comments have been turned off on some outside Blogs is a reaction to
the misleading and vitriolic attacks of a few rabidly anti-reform zealots who
are constantly scouring the Internet to post their misleading attacks. It is a
shame that fair and thoughtful comments become the fall-out victims of
this, but FairVote does not want to promote the voices that are
undercutting any serious election method reform. We also participates
in dialogue on the Election Methods list. Others are free to write and submit
their own opinion pieces to the Huffington Post, or newspapers, or anywhere they
wish.</div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The internet is full of people who will post crap. Closing the doors on discussion is not the answer to this.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks again for your response,</div>
<div>JQ</div><div> </div></div>