<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">"But it is only Condorcet that elects
the candidate that is explicitly preferred by voters over every
other candidate."</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I wonder tho, whether that satisfies
the requiremant for one candidate (of their number) to be prefered
over a whole range of candidates?</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">from</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Richard Lung.<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 19/05/2019 01:30, robert
bristow-johnson wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1c9899f8202abee39b033920552e9fcd.squirrel@webmail04.register.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>okay, Sennet, I am posting this to the EM mailing list.<br>
<br>
---------------------------- Original Message
----------------------------<br>
Subject: Re: re Burlington<br>
From: "Sennet Williams" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sennetwilliams@yahoo.com"><sennetwilliams@yahoo.com></a><br>
Date: Sat, May 18, 2019 12:50 pm<br>
To: "robert bristow-johnson" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com"><rbj@audioimagination.com></a><br>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
<br>
> yes, I meant to put that in the email. you are free to
post it to the list.<br>
> As I probably typed before, the problem with Condorcet is
that it would be "practically" impossible to count by hand.</p>
<p>No, Sennet, it isn't. It's straight forward, but laborious.
If doing this by hand, you would need a team of 4 (2 callers and
2 counters) for
each pair combination of candidates. If you had 2 candidates,
that's one pair (and it's just like FPTP).. If you had 3
candidates, it's 3 pairs. If you had 4 candidates, it's 6
pairs. If you had 5 candidates, it's 10 pairs. The counting
could be done simultaneously if
you had sufficient people or serially, in turn, if you don't
have more enough for simultaneous counting. all ballots would
be handled by each counting team once. and it is precinct
summable so the burden can be distributed to many precinct
locations. unlike IRV, the counting need
not be done at a single central location.</p>
<p>but for a lot of candidates, like a dozen, IRV would be faster
to do by hand, but still practical.</p>
<p>> In real elections, IRV, and Condorcet will have the same
results: The winning candidate will be the one who has the
broadest
preferred support.</p>
<p>No, Sennet, that is decidedly false. This is why i asked you
if you really "understand what the difference is between IRV and
Condorcet?" When you make claims like that, it makes me
wonder. It's simply a demonstrably false assertion.</p>
<p>The
Burlington mayoral election in 2009 was a "real election".
Someone **really** got elected to office in that election.</p>
<p>And IRV and Condorcet would have clearly gotten different
results in that real election. The IRV elected Bob Kiss. And
Condorcet would have elected
Andy Montroll. (And plurality of first-choice votes would have
elected Kurt Wright.) But it is only Condorcet that elects the
candidate that is explicitly preferred by voters over every
other candidate.</p>
<p><br>
><br>
> On Friday, May 17, 2019, 11:40:35 AM PDT, robert
bristow-johnson <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com"><rbj@audioimagination.com></a> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> hi Sennet,<br>
><br>
> can we post this to the list? i didn't wanna do that
without your consent. it's just that maybe we can get someone
else besides the two of us to pipe in on the conversation.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ---------------------------- Original Message
----------------------------<br>
> Subject: re Burlington<br>
><br>
From: "Sennet Williams" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sennetwilliams@yahoo.com"><sennetwilliams@yahoo.com></a><br>
> Date: Thu, May 16, 2019 8:54 pm<br>
> To: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com">"rbj@audioimagination.com"</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com"><rbj@audioimagination.com></a><br>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
><br>
>> well, I have no idea what IRV system Burlington used.<br>
><br>
> it's the same IRV as in every other governmental RCV
election except we had 5 ranking levels and 5 candidates. so no
one was "disenfranchised". you could have ranked the candidates
in opposite order of their expost facto popularity, and you
would still be able to weigh in
on the IRV final round that actually selects the mayor.<br>
><br>
> here is an analysis of what went
wrong: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://rangevoting.org/Burlington.html">https://rangevoting.org/Burlington.html</a><br>
><br>
> here's
another: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://bolson.org/~bolson/2009/20090303_burlington_vt_mayor.html">http://bolson.org/~bolson/2009/20090303_burlington_vt_mayor.html</a><br>
><br>
> essentially, we had 4 strong candidates going in. 3 were
all plausible winners. the GOP candidate had the Plurality, the
Prog candidate wonthe IRV, and the Dem candidate was the
pairwise champion. the Dem would have beaten **any** other
candidate in the IRV final round had he
been able to advance to the final round. that IRV eliminated
him in the semi-final round was the execution of this inherent
flaw of IRV.<br>
><br>
><br>
>> The problem we have had in SF, Berkeley and Oakland is
that each voter can only select three candidates, and the number
of exhausted ballots exceeded the winning margin in at least
several elections.<br>
><br>
> yes, that's a known problem with **any** RCV if the number
of candidates on the ballotexceeds the number of ranking
levels. you need more ranking levels than 3 and you need
stronger (or stricter) ballot access requirements so that fewer
candidates get on the ballot and only those that are
plausible winners. i think 5 levels is enough, and the number
of signatures on apetition needed to get on the ballot can be
adjusted by law in response to the usual number of candidates
that make it onto the ballot. if there are consistently more
names than ranking levels, the
legislative body has the information and the authority necessary
to increase the number ofrequired signatures to have candidate
access to the ballot.<br>
><br>
><br>
>> Most clearly in the Kaplan/Quan/Perata mayor's contest
(Oakland''s 1st IRV election) There were also six "minor"
candidates. Kaplan was almost surely the most preferred, but
Quan gamed the system by mortgaging her house and spending a lot
asking casual voters
to"make me 2nd. The winning margin over Kaplan was very narrow
but the number of exhausted ballots was very large because most
of the minor candidates were black while none of the big three
were. A lot of people blamed the IRV system for electing Quan,
who was
basicallyincompetent, but there has been no serious attempt to
repeal IRV.<br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> Ranked-Choice Voting will not stop bad politicians that are
good salespersons from winning office. But it is intended to
stop spoiler candidates from preventing the candidate with the
actual popular supportfrom winning.<br>
><br>
><br>
>> When CA gets statewide IRV, we would presumably Maine's
system and all counties will be given new equipment so all
candidates can be ranked.<br>
><br>
> In Burlington we didn't need new equipment. just new
software. the optical-scan machines were the same machines, but
they had to beprogrammed slightly differently.<br>
><br>
> Sennet, do you understand what the difference is between
IRV and Condorcet? What it is that we on the list bitch about
regarding IRV.<br>
><br>
> Our issue is not that we don't like RCV, we **want**
Ranked-Choice Voting, we just want the rules reformed so thatthe
pairwise champion is always elected. IRV will do that *most* of
the time, but it does not always do that. and like the
Electoral College, when IRV fails to elect who
we all know should have been elected, it never brings legitimacy
to the election. failure to elect the pairwisechampion will
only harm voting system reform.<br>
> <br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
><br>
> r b-j <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com">rbj@audioimagination.com</a><br>
><br>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."<br>
><br>
> <br>
> <br>
><br>
> <br>
><br>
> <br>
></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><br>
--<br>
<br>
r b-j <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com">rbj@audioimagination.com</a><br>
<br>
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."<br>
</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">----
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://electorama.com/em">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>