V
VoteFair
Wed, Dec 4, 2019 9:01 PM
On 12/4/2019 12:18 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
How does this look to you guys? ...
Item 4 needs some serious surgery. It needs to be split into two or
even three parts, which I'll refer to here as 4a and 4b and 4c.
Notice that there is no provision for how to count a ballot on which the
voter ranks more than one candidate at the same preference level! To
fix this serious unfairness I suggest the following wording for 4a
(which uses the same first sentence):
4a: In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for
whichever remaining candidate the voter has ranked highest. If a voter
ranks two or more remaining candidates at the same currently-highest
preference level then that single vote shall be split into equal-weight
two-digit decimal numbers that add up to no more than a single vote.
Specifically if a ballot ranks three remaining candidates at the same
currently-highest preference level then each of those three candidates
will each receive 0.33 portion of a vote during the current round.
(Grammar: "currently-highest" would not normally use a hyphen because of
the "ly" ending, but including the hyphen makes the meaning less
ambiguous in this legal usage.)
The remaining portion of item four could be used for item 4b, BUT please
consider the following fairer wordings for items 4b and 4c, which might
be as easy to understand as the existing wording:
4b: In each elimination round each remaining candidate is compared to
each other remaining candidate one pair at a time to determine whether
there is a "pairwise-losing" candidate that is ranked lower on more than
half the ballots in each and every pairwise comparison. If there is a
pairwise-losing candidate who loses all its pairwise contests against
all the other remaining candidates then that candidate is eliminated.
4c: If an elimination round has no pairwise-losing candidate then the
candidate who receives the fewest votes is eliminated in that round. If
there is a tie for fewest votes and the tie affects which candidate can
win, then a recount shall be done and if the recount also results in a
tie that affects who wins then a court shall determine how to resolve
the tie.
The longer wording for 4c is needed because the current wording fails to
explain how to resolve an IRV tie.
The method described above is NOT Condorcet compliant, but it is so
close to being Condorcet compliant that any exception would also involve
bigger unfairness issues (such as a very small turnout).
Regardless of whether you can use the recommended pairwise wording, at
least make sure that the wording explains what to do when a voter ranks
more than one candidate at the same preference level. Note that tossing
out that ballot is NOT a valid option! If someone in your group insists
that it should be tossed out, then at least stop ignoring the ballot
when there is a round in which only one "remaining" candidate is ranked
at that same preference level.
Good luck! You're doing great work!!!
Richard Fobes
On 12/4/2019 12:18 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
How does this look to you guys? This is the original language on the existing resolution to implement RCV that is not Condorcet compliant:
All elections of mayor, city councilors and school commissioners shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked choice voting without a separate runoff election. The chief administrative officer shall implement a ranked choice voting protocol according to these guidelines:
(1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference.
(2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.
(3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in rounds. In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest. The candidate with the fewest votes after each round shall be eliminated until only two candidates remain, with the candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
(4) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.
and here is the original languate modified to implement BTR-STV that is Condorcet compliant:
All elections of mayor, city councilors and school commissioners shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked choice voting without a separate runoff election. The chief administrative officer shall implement a ranked choice voting protocol according to these guidelines:
(1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference.
(2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.
(3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in sequential rounds. A "remaining candidate" is defined as a candidate that has not been eliminated in any previous round. Initially, no candidate is eliminated and all candidates begin as remaining candidates.
(4) In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever remaining candidate the voter has ranked highest. The two candidates with the fewest votes in a round, herein designated as "A" and "B", shall be compared in a runoff in which the candidate, A or B, with lesser voter support is eliminated in the same round. If the number of ballots having A ranked higher than B exceeds the number of ballots having B ranked higher than A, then B has lesser voter support, B is eliminated, and A remains for the following round. Likewise, if the number of ballots having B ranked higher than A exceeds the number of ballots having A ranked higher than B, then A has lesser voter support, A is eliminated, and B remains for the following round. In the case that the aforementioned measure of voter support between A and B is tied, then the candidate with fewest votes is eliminated in the same round.
(5) This runoff re-tabulation, eliminating one candidate each round, is repeated until only two candidates remain, with the candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
(6) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.
Is this good language for BTR-STV? Can any of you think of a hole in this description? Can any of you make it better or more concise?
Thank you.
r b-j
On December 3, 2019 3:44 PM Kristofer Munsterhjelm km_elmet@t-online.de wrote:
On 03/12/2019 16.54, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
I want to figure out some good language to change this from regular-old IRV to Bottom-Two Runoff, Single Transferable Vote, BTR-STV . If someone is good at writing legal language or if this BTR-STV has had legislative language written for it somewhere else, I would like to see it.
The language that needs to be changed, to make this RCV Condorcet-compliant is:
"... The candidate with the fewest votes after each round shall be eliminated ..."
How can we clearly and concisely change that to Bottom-Two Runoff?
My first stab would be: "After each round, of the two candidates with
the fewest votes, the candidate ranked below the other by the most
voters shall be eliminated".
Alternatively "on the most ballots". Or "among the two candidates". Or
"of the two candidates with the fewest votes in that round".
Presumably there has to be some tie-breaking language for the case where
more than one candidate is last or next-to-last. But I suppose there is
some similar language for IRV as is.
If there is no equal-rank or truncation, you can also say "the candidate
ranked below the other by a majority of the voters".
The strategy to turn IRV into BTR-IRV is probably the best one. Woodall
is better than BTR-IRV, and you could turn the method into Woodall by
checking for a CW before a round starts, but then you'd have to define
what a CW means in a way that doesn't confuse people who are unfamiliar
with Condorcet.
Looking again at the language, point (3) is already rather convoluted.
Perhaps it would be better to split up the definition. Something like:
(3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant
runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election
officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in rounds.
In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for
whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest, and
subsidiarily to determine what candidate to eliminate. After each round,
the two candidates with the fewest votes shall be considered for
elimination. Of these two candidates, the candidate ranked below the
other by the most voters shall be eliminated in that round. The counting
in rounds shall continue until only two candidates remain, with the
candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
(Maybe also call it something else than "instant runoff re-tabulation"
because it's no longer IRV, but I can't think of a better name at the
moment.)
I'm much less certain about Woodall. See below for something I cooked up.
(1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in
order of preference.
(2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first
preferences, that candidate is elected.
(3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant
runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election
officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in rounds,
for which the counting shall be conducted according to the following
three points.
(4) If there exists a continuing candidate so that for every other
continuing candidate, the former candidate is ranked ahead of the latter
by a majority of the voters, the former candidate is elected.
(5) If there is no such candidate, each voter’s ballot shall count as a
single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked
highest. The candidate with the fewest votes shall be eliminated, which
marks the end of the current round and the beginning of the next.
(6) The counting in rounds shall continue until a candidate is elected
or only one candidate remains, with the remaining candidate then being
elected.
(7) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with
this subsection to implement these standards.
(Strictly speaking, the latter half of point 6 is redundant because when
only two candidates remain, the winner beats the loser pairwise and
would be elected by point 4. But a potentially infinite loop looks more
dangerous than a finite one.)
I haven't written legislative language before, but maybe it can serve as
a starting point for others who have.
-km
On 12/4/2019 12:18 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> How does this look to you guys? ...
Item 4 needs some serious surgery. It needs to be split into two or
even three parts, which I'll refer to here as 4a and 4b and 4c.
Notice that there is no provision for how to count a ballot on which the
voter ranks more than one candidate at the same preference level! To
fix this serious unfairness I suggest the following wording for 4a
(which uses the same first sentence):
4a: In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for
whichever remaining candidate the voter has ranked highest. If a voter
ranks two or more remaining candidates at the same currently-highest
preference level then that single vote shall be split into equal-weight
two-digit decimal numbers that add up to no more than a single vote.
Specifically if a ballot ranks three remaining candidates at the same
currently-highest preference level then each of those three candidates
will each receive 0.33 portion of a vote during the current round.
(Grammar: "currently-highest" would not normally use a hyphen because of
the "ly" ending, but including the hyphen makes the meaning less
ambiguous in this legal usage.)
The remaining portion of item four could be used for item 4b, BUT please
consider the following fairer wordings for items 4b and 4c, which might
be as easy to understand as the existing wording:
4b: In each elimination round each remaining candidate is compared to
each other remaining candidate one pair at a time to determine whether
there is a "pairwise-losing" candidate that is ranked lower on more than
half the ballots in each and every pairwise comparison. If there is a
pairwise-losing candidate who loses all its pairwise contests against
all the other remaining candidates then that candidate is eliminated.
4c: If an elimination round has no pairwise-losing candidate then the
candidate who receives the fewest votes is eliminated in that round. If
there is a tie for fewest votes and the tie affects which candidate can
win, then a recount shall be done and if the recount also results in a
tie that affects who wins then a court shall determine how to resolve
the tie.
The longer wording for 4c is needed because the current wording fails to
explain how to resolve an IRV tie.
The method described above is NOT Condorcet compliant, but it is so
close to being Condorcet compliant that any exception would also involve
bigger unfairness issues (such as a very small turnout).
Regardless of whether you can use the recommended pairwise wording, at
least make sure that the wording explains what to do when a voter ranks
more than one candidate at the same preference level. Note that tossing
out that ballot is NOT a valid option! If someone in your group insists
that it should be tossed out, then at least stop ignoring the ballot
when there is a round in which only one "remaining" candidate is ranked
at that same preference level.
Good luck! You're doing great work!!!
Richard Fobes
On 12/4/2019 12:18 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>
> How does this look to you guys? This is the original language on the existing resolution to implement RCV that is not Condorcet compliant:
>
> ________________________________________________________
>
>
> All elections of mayor, city councilors and school commissioners shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked choice voting without a separate runoff election. The chief administrative officer shall implement a ranked choice voting protocol according to these guidelines:
> (1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference.
> (2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.
> (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in rounds. In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest. The candidate with the fewest votes after each round shall be eliminated until only two candidates remain, with the candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
> (4) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.
>
> ________________________________________________________
>
>
> and here is the original languate modified to implement BTR-STV that is Condorcet compliant:
>
>
> ________________________________________________________
>
>
> All elections of mayor, city councilors and school commissioners shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked choice voting without a separate runoff election. The chief administrative officer shall implement a ranked choice voting protocol according to these guidelines:
> (1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference.
> (2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.
> (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in sequential rounds. A "remaining candidate" is defined as a candidate that has not been eliminated in any previous round. Initially, no candidate is eliminated and all candidates begin as remaining candidates.
> (4) In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever remaining candidate the voter has ranked highest. The two candidates with the fewest votes in a round, herein designated as "A" and "B", shall be compared in a runoff in which the candidate, A or B, with lesser voter support is eliminated in the same round. If the number of ballots having A ranked higher than B exceeds the number of ballots having B ranked higher than A, then B has lesser voter support, B is eliminated, and A remains for the following round. Likewise, if the number of ballots having B ranked higher than A exceeds the number of ballots having A ranked higher than B, then A has lesser voter support, A is eliminated, and B remains for the following round. In the case that the aforementioned measure of voter support between A and B is tied, then the candidate with fewest votes is eliminated in the same round.
> (5) This runoff re-tabulation, eliminating one candidate each round, is repeated until only two candidates remain, with the candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
> (6) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.
>
> ________________________________________________________
>
>
> Is this good language for BTR-STV? Can any of you think of a hole in this description? Can any of you make it better or more concise?
>
> Thank you.
>
> r b-j
>
>
>> On December 3, 2019 3:44 PM Kristofer Munsterhjelm <km_elmet@t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03/12/2019 16.54, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>>>
> ...
>>>
>>> I want to figure out some good language to change this from regular-old IRV to Bottom-Two Runoff, Single Transferable Vote, BTR-STV . If someone is good at writing legal language or if this BTR-STV has had legislative language written for it somewhere else, I would like to see it.
>>>
>>> The language that needs to be changed, to make this RCV Condorcet-compliant is:
>>>
>>> "... The candidate with the fewest votes after each round shall be eliminated ..."
>>>
>>> How can we clearly and concisely change that to Bottom-Two Runoff?
>>
>> My first stab would be: "After each round, of the two candidates with
>> the fewest votes, the candidate ranked below the other by the most
>> voters shall be eliminated".
>>
>> Alternatively "on the most ballots". Or "among the two candidates". Or
>> "of the two candidates with the fewest votes in that round".
>>
>> Presumably there has to be some tie-breaking language for the case where
>> more than one candidate is last or next-to-last. But I suppose there is
>> some similar language for IRV as is.
>>
>> If there is no equal-rank or truncation, you can also say "the candidate
>> ranked below the other by a majority of the voters".
>>
>> The strategy to turn IRV into BTR-IRV is probably the best one. Woodall
>> is better than BTR-IRV, and you could turn the method into Woodall by
>> checking for a CW before a round starts, but then you'd have to define
>> what a CW means in a way that doesn't confuse people who are unfamiliar
>> with Condorcet.
>>
>> Looking again at the language, point (3) is already rather convoluted.
>> Perhaps it would be better to split up the definition. Something like:
>>
>> (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant
>> runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election
>> officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in rounds.
>> In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for
>> whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest, and
>> subsidiarily to determine what candidate to eliminate. After each round,
>> the two candidates with the fewest votes shall be considered for
>> elimination. Of these two candidates, the candidate ranked below the
>> other by the most voters shall be eliminated in that round. The counting
>> in rounds shall continue until only two candidates remain, with the
>> candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
>>
>> (Maybe also call it something else than "instant runoff re-tabulation"
>> because it's no longer IRV, but I can't think of a better name at the
>> moment.)
>>
>> I'm much less certain about Woodall. See below for something I cooked up.
>>
>> (1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in
>> order of preference.
>> (2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first
>> preferences, that candidate is elected.
>> (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant
>> runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election
>> officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in rounds,
>> for which the counting shall be conducted according to the following
>> three points.
>> (4) If there exists a continuing candidate so that for every other
>> continuing candidate, the former candidate is ranked ahead of the latter
>> by a majority of the voters, the former candidate is elected.
>> (5) If there is no such candidate, each voter’s ballot shall count as a
>> single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked
>> highest. The candidate with the fewest votes shall be eliminated, which
>> marks the end of the current round and the beginning of the next.
>> (6) The counting in rounds shall continue until a candidate is elected
>> or only one candidate remains, with the remaining candidate then being
>> elected.
>> (7) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with
>> this subsection to implement these standards.
>>
>> (Strictly speaking, the latter half of point 6 is redundant because when
>> only two candidates remain, the winner beats the loser pairwise and
>> would be elected by point 4. But a potentially infinite loop looks more
>> dangerous than a finite one.)
>>
>> I haven't written legislative language before, but maybe it can serve as
>> a starting point for others who have.
>>
>> -km
>
> --
>
> r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
>
JL
Juho Laatu
Thu, Dec 5, 2019 2:50 AM
Ok, I guess you need an easy to understand and clear (to make it acceptable in short time) alternative proposal that would address the problems of 2009. Here's one more possible wording (and resulting method) in addition to the already presented wordings and methods. It basically adds one more criterion in section (3). I however had to modify and rearrange the text quite a bit to fit that criterion (more or less) nicely in. Text in square brackets might or might not be included. You know better how much text is needed to make the proposal easy to understand.
(3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in rounds. In each round, if one of the continuing candidates is preferred [in the ranked ballots] over any other continuing candidate [more often than the other way around] [, when that candidate is compared to every other continuing candidate one by one], then that candidate will be elected. If there is no such candidate, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest, and the candidate with the fewest votes shall be eliminated.
BR, Juho
On December 3, 2019 5:13 PM Juho Laatu juho.laatu@gmail.com wrote:
My simple thoughts on this:
- You ask: Do you agree that in problematic situations, like what happened in 2009, the result should be different?
- They answer: Yes.
- You say: This is a problem that is fortunately quite easily to fix. The most straight forward way to enhance the method is to use the Bottom-Two Runoff. The losing candidate one of the two candidates with least votes will be eliminated.
- They say: Ok, let's see if that would be our ideal solution.
- You say: Ok, let's start from there.
Juho, this is exactly my strategy. But there is a little bit of an issue about "let's start from there". Here is the latest news regarding yesterday's Council meeting and RCV:
https://vtdigger.org/2019/12/03/burlington-considers-instant-runoff-voting-for-most-city-races/
What has happened is that the Progs have "succeeded" in fending off an amendment to take more time and investigate alternatives to the IRV method of RCV. They want, really badly, to get this on the ballot for this coming Town Meeting Day in March 2020. The latest that the Council can decide to include this on the ballot is in 13 days. And in 6 days is when the Charter Change Committee will consider this proposed ballot item, fix any language, and recommend it to the Council on Dec 16.
I am afraid that putting this on the ballot "half-baked", with effectively no change from what we had in 2009 and acknowledging no error from the 2009 election, will result in March in rejection by the majority of voters and will, again, set back voting reform for another decade. So I want to make a good effort at changing the language from regular-old IRV to BTR-STV. And hopefully get that change adopted by the Charter Change Committee and sent up to the Council to consider for inclusion on the ballot. Then we can tell voters that this IRV is different from the 2009 IRV and would have corrected the failure of IRV we had in 2009.
I believe that Schulze is technically the best RCV, but since Schulze and Ranked-Pairs will elect the same candidate when the Smith set is 3 candidates or fewer, my favorite would be RP using margins for a governmental election because its method is easier to understand and encode into legal language that laypersons can read and understand. Also, we would be able to say to the IRV haters that this RP RCV is not IRV at all.
However, we can't say that about BTR-STV because, after all, it is a form of Instant Runoff Voting, but and IRV method that will elect the Pairwise Champion (the term that I will use to denote the Condorcet Winner). But, given the circumstances (that an IRV proposal is in the works right now), I think this is the best action I can hope to take. I would have to admit that this Condorcet-compliant IRV is still IRV. The Progs won't mind and other naive RCV supporters won't mind, but the IRV haters, particularly those who hated the IRV winner in 2009 will always hate IRV or any RCV, but I would still rather be promoting an RCV that is not IRV (no runoff rounds).
I am taking Kristofer's language suggestions and possibly modifying. I would like to see language suggestions from others. Either way, I will post what language I finally will submit to the Charter Change Committee. They will probably reject my submission, but I will tell them plainly that if they are offering RCV that is no different from the IRV that resulted in the 2009 failure and was repealed by voters the following year, that their proposed charter change will be rejected by the majority of voters on Town Meeting Day. And this will likely set back voting reform by another decade.
and also to you, Juho. i am appreciative of any help or language or analysis suggestions from you or anyone.
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
Ok, I guess you need an easy to understand and clear (to make it acceptable in short time) alternative proposal that would address the problems of 2009. Here's one more possible wording (and resulting method) in addition to the already presented wordings and methods. It basically adds one more criterion in section (3). I however had to modify and rearrange the text quite a bit to fit that criterion (more or less) nicely in. Text in square brackets might or might not be included. You know better how much text is needed to make the proposal easy to understand.
(3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in rounds. In each round, if one of the continuing candidates is preferred [in the ranked ballots] over any other continuing candidate [more often than the other way around] [, when that candidate is compared to every other continuing candidate one by one], then that candidate will be elected. If there is no such candidate, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest, and the candidate with the fewest votes shall be eliminated.
BR, Juho
> On 04 Dec 2019, at 00:56, robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On December 3, 2019 5:13 PM Juho Laatu <juho.laatu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> My simple thoughts on this:
>>
>> - You ask: Do you agree that in problematic situations, like what happened in 2009, the result should be different?
>> - They answer: Yes.
>> - You say: This is a problem that is fortunately quite easily to fix. The most straight forward way to enhance the method is to use the Bottom-Two Runoff. The losing candidate one of the two candidates with least votes will be eliminated.
>> - They say: Ok, let's see if that would be our ideal solution.
>> - You say: Ok, let's start from there.
>>
>
> Juho, this is **exactly** my strategy. But there is a little bit of an issue about "let's start from there". Here is the latest news regarding yesterday's Council meeting and RCV:
>
> https://vtdigger.org/2019/12/03/burlington-considers-instant-runoff-voting-for-most-city-races/
>
> What has happened is that the Progs have "succeeded" in fending off an amendment to take more time and investigate alternatives to the IRV method of RCV. They want, really badly, to get this on the ballot for this coming Town Meeting Day in March 2020. The latest that the Council can decide to include this on the ballot is in 13 days. And in 6 days is when the Charter Change Committee will consider this proposed ballot item, fix any language, and recommend it to the Council on Dec 16.
>
> I am afraid that putting this on the ballot "half-baked", with effectively no change from what we had in 2009 and acknowledging no error from the 2009 election, will result in March in rejection by the majority of voters and will, again, set back voting reform for another decade. So I want to make a good effort at changing the language from regular-old IRV to BTR-STV. And hopefully get that change adopted by the Charter Change Committee and sent up to the Council to consider for inclusion on the ballot. Then we can tell voters that this IRV is different from the 2009 IRV and would have corrected the failure of IRV we had in 2009.
>
> I believe that Schulze is technically the best RCV, but since Schulze and Ranked-Pairs will elect the same candidate when the Smith set is 3 candidates or fewer, my favorite would be RP using margins for a governmental election because its method is easier to understand and encode into legal language that laypersons can read and understand. Also, we would be able to say to the IRV haters that this RP RCV is not IRV at all.
>
> However, we can't say that about BTR-STV because, after all, it *is* a form of Instant Runoff Voting, but and IRV method that *will* elect the Pairwise Champion (the term that I will use to denote the Condorcet Winner). But, given the circumstances (that an IRV proposal is in the works right now), I think this is the best action I can hope to take. I would have to admit that this Condorcet-compliant IRV is still IRV. The Progs won't mind and other naive RCV supporters won't mind, but the IRV haters, particularly those who hated the IRV winner in 2009 will always hate IRV or any RCV, but I would still rather be promoting an RCV that is *not* IRV (no runoff rounds).
>
> I am taking Kristofer's language suggestions and possibly modifying. I would like to see language suggestions from others. Either way, I will post what language I finally will submit to the Charter Change Committee. They will probably reject my submission, but I will tell them plainly that if they are offering RCV that is no different from the IRV that resulted in the 2009 failure and was repealed by voters the following year, that their proposed charter change will be rejected by the majority of voters on Town Meeting Day. And this will likely set back voting reform by another decade.
>
>> BR, Juho
>
> and also to you, Juho. i am appreciative of any help or language or analysis suggestions from you or anyone.
>
>
> --
>
> r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
RB
robert bristow-johnson
Thu, Dec 5, 2019 3:26 AM
On December 4, 2019 9:50 PM Juho Laatu juho.laatu@gmail.com wrote:
(3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in rounds. In each round, if one of the continuing candidates is preferred [in the ranked ballots] over any other continuing candidate [more often than the other way around] [, when that candidate is compared to every other continuing candidate one by one], then that candidate will be elected. If there is no such candidate, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest, and the candidate with the fewest votes shall be eliminated.
The language in the brackets "more often than the other way around" needs to be different.
Juho, if you could take the following original and graft your (3) into it, that makes it something to compare to.
Here is their (non-Condorcet RCV) original:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, for the purpose of placing a charter change question on the March 3, 2020 town meeting election ballot, the City Council hereby refers the following question amending City Charter § 5 to its Charter Change Committee for review and recommendation to the full City Council by its December 16, 2019 meeting, in order to reintroduce ranked choice voting for the election of the City’s mayor, city councilors, and school commissioners:
§ 5 Election to be by ballot; method of election:
All elections of mayor, city councilors and school commissioners shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked choice voting without a separate runoff election. The chief administrative officer shall implement a
ranked choice voting protocol according to these guidelines:
(1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference.
(2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.
(3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff retabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff retabulation shall be conducted in rounds. In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest. The candidate with the fewest votes after each round shall be eliminated until only two candidates remain, with the candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
(4) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.
Here is my latest BTR-STV stab at it:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, for the purpose of placing a charter change question on the March 3, 2020 town meeting election ballot, the City Council hereby refers the following question amending City Charter § 5 to its Charter Change Committee for review and recommendation to the full City Council by its December 16, 2019 meeting, in order to reintroduce ranked choice voting for the election of the City’s mayor, city councilors, and school commissioners:
§ 5 Election to be by ballot; method of election:
All elections of mayor, city councilors and school commissioners shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked choice voting without a separate runoff election. The chief administrative officer shall implement a ranked choice voting protocol according to these guidelines:
(1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference.
(2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.
(3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff retabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff retabulation shall be conducted in sequential rounds. A "remaining candidate" is defined as a candidate that has not been eliminated in any previous round. Initially, no candidate is eliminated and all candidates begin as remaining candidates.
(4) In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever remaining candidate the voter has ranked highest. The two candidates with the fewest votes in a round, herein designated as "A" and "B", shall be compared in a runoff in which the candidate, A or B, with lesser voter support is eliminated in the current round. If the number of ballots having A ranked higher than B exceeds the number of ballots having B ranked higher than A, then B has lesser voter support, B is eliminated, and A remains for the following round. Likewise, if the number of ballots having B ranked higher than A exceeds the number of ballots having A ranked higher than B, then A has lesser voter support, A is eliminated, and B remains for the following round. In the case that the aforementioned measure of voter support between A and B is tied, then the candidate with fewest votes is eliminated in the current round.
(5) This runoff retabulation, eliminating one candidate each round, is repeated until only two candidates remain, with the candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
(6) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
> On December 4, 2019 9:50 PM Juho Laatu <juho.laatu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in rounds. In each round, if one of the continuing candidates is preferred [in the ranked ballots] over any other continuing candidate [more often than the other way around] [, when that candidate is compared to every other continuing candidate one by one], then that candidate will be elected. If there is no such candidate, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest, and the candidate with the fewest votes shall be eliminated.
>
The language in the brackets "more often than the other way around" needs to be different.
Juho, if you could take the following original and graft your (3) into it, that makes it something to compare to.
Here is their (non-Condorcet RCV) original:
________________________________________________________
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, for the purpose of placing a charter change question on the March 3, 2020 town meeting election ballot, the City Council hereby refers the following question amending City Charter § 5 to its Charter Change Committee for review and recommendation to the full City Council by its December 16, 2019 meeting, in order to reintroduce ranked choice voting for the election of the City’s mayor, city councilors, and school commissioners:
§ 5 Election to be by ballot; method of election:
All elections of mayor, city councilors and school commissioners shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked choice voting without a separate runoff election. The chief administrative officer shall implement a
ranked choice voting protocol according to these guidelines:
(1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference.
(2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.
(3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff retabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff retabulation shall be conducted in rounds. In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest. The candidate with the fewest votes after each round shall be eliminated until only two candidates remain, with the candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
(4) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.
________________________________________________________
Here is my latest BTR-STV stab at it:
________________________________________________________
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, for the purpose of placing a charter change question on the March 3, 2020 town meeting election ballot, the City Council hereby refers the following question amending City Charter § 5 to its Charter Change Committee for review and recommendation to the full City Council by its December 16, 2019 meeting, in order to reintroduce ranked choice voting for the election of the City’s mayor, city councilors, and school commissioners:
§ 5 Election to be by ballot; method of election:
All elections of mayor, city councilors and school commissioners shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked choice voting without a separate runoff election. The chief administrative officer shall implement a ranked choice voting protocol according to these guidelines:
(1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference.
(2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.
(3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff retabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff retabulation shall be conducted in sequential rounds. A "remaining candidate" is defined as a candidate that has not been eliminated in any previous round. Initially, no candidate is eliminated and all candidates begin as remaining candidates.
(4) In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever remaining candidate the voter has ranked highest. The two candidates with the fewest votes in a round, herein designated as "A" and "B", shall be compared in a runoff in which the candidate, A or B, with lesser voter support is eliminated in the current round. If the number of ballots having A ranked higher than B exceeds the number of ballots having B ranked higher than A, then B has lesser voter support, B is eliminated, and A remains for the following round. Likewise, if the number of ballots having B ranked higher than A exceeds the number of ballots having A ranked higher than B, then A has lesser voter support, A is eliminated, and B remains for the following round. In the case that the aforementioned measure of voter support between A and B is tied, then the candidate with fewest votes is eliminated in the current round.
(5) This runoff retabulation, eliminating one candidate each round, is repeated until only two candidates remain, with the candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
(6) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.
________________________________________________________
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
V
VoteFair
Thu, Dec 5, 2019 4:50 AM
On 12/4/2019 7:26 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On December 4, 2019 9:50 PM Juho Laatu juho.laatu@gmail.com wrote:
... In each round, if one of the continuing candidates is preferred
[in the ranked ballots] over any other continuing candidate [more often
than the other way around] [, when that candidate is compared to every
other continuing candidate one by one], then that candidate will be
elected. ...
One way to simplify the wording when pairwise counting is involved -- as
it is here -- is to refer to "more than half the ballots."
Accordingly, here is an alternate wording for the above sentence:
In each round, if there is a not-yet-eliminated candidate who is ranked
higher on more than half the ballots when that candidate is compared to
each and every one of the other not-yet-eliminated candidates on a
pairwise (one-on-one) basis, then that pairwise-winning candidate shall
be elected.
I'll again repeat my point that the wordings being proposed do not
specify what to do with ballots that rank more than one candidate at the
same preference level. If voting will be done electronically then this
issue will only affect the few ballots submitted by mail (such as from
people overseas in military service), but otherwise this gap will allow
many, many ballots to be discarded as "spoiled" even though they are
marked in a reasonable way.
Again, good luck getting at least some improvements.
Richard Fobes
On 12/4/2019 7:26 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On December 4, 2019 9:50 PM Juho Laatu juho.laatu@gmail.com wrote:
(3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in rounds. In each round, if one of the continuing candidates is preferred [in the ranked ballots] over any other continuing candidate [more often than the other way around] [, when that candidate is compared to every other continuing candidate one by one], then that candidate will be elected. If there is no such candidate, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest, and the candidate with the fewest votes shall be eliminated.
The language in the brackets "more often than the other way around" needs to be different.
Juho, if you could take the following original and graft your (3) into it, that makes it something to compare to.
Here is their (non-Condorcet RCV) original:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, for the purpose of placing a charter change question on the March 3, 2020 town meeting election ballot, the City Council hereby refers the following question amending City Charter § 5 to its Charter Change Committee for review and recommendation to the full City Council by its December 16, 2019 meeting, in order to reintroduce ranked choice voting for the election of the City’s mayor, city councilors, and school commissioners:
§ 5 Election to be by ballot; method of election:
All elections of mayor, city councilors and school commissioners shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked choice voting without a separate runoff election. The chief administrative officer shall implement a
ranked choice voting protocol according to these guidelines:
(1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference.
(2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.
(3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff retabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff retabulation shall be conducted in rounds. In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest. The candidate with the fewest votes after each round shall be eliminated until only two candidates remain, with the candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
(4) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.
Here is my latest BTR-STV stab at it:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, for the purpose of placing a charter change question on the March 3, 2020 town meeting election ballot, the City Council hereby refers the following question amending City Charter § 5 to its Charter Change Committee for review and recommendation to the full City Council by its December 16, 2019 meeting, in order to reintroduce ranked choice voting for the election of the City’s mayor, city councilors, and school commissioners:
§ 5 Election to be by ballot; method of election:
All elections of mayor, city councilors and school commissioners shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked choice voting without a separate runoff election. The chief administrative officer shall implement a ranked choice voting protocol according to these guidelines:
(1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference.
(2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.
(3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff retabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff retabulation shall be conducted in sequential rounds. A "remaining candidate" is defined as a candidate that has not been eliminated in any previous round. Initially, no candidate is eliminated and all candidates begin as remaining candidates.
(4) In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever remaining candidate the voter has ranked highest. The two candidates with the fewest votes in a round, herein designated as "A" and "B", shall be compared in a runoff in which the candidate, A or B, with lesser voter support is eliminated in the current round. If the number of ballots having A ranked higher than B exceeds the number of ballots having B ranked higher than A, then B has lesser voter support, B is eliminated, and A remains for the following round. Likewise, if the number of ballots having B ranked higher than A exceeds the number of ballots having A ranked higher than B, then A has lesser voter support, A is eliminated, and B remains for the following round. In the case that the aforementioned measure of voter support between A and B is tied, then the candidate with fewest votes is eliminated in the current round.
(5) This runoff retabulation, eliminating one candidate each round, is repeated until only two candidates remain, with the candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
(6) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
On 12/4/2019 7:26 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>> On December 4, 2019 9:50 PM Juho Laatu <juho.laatu@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ... In each round, if one of the continuing candidates is preferred
[in the ranked ballots] over any other continuing candidate [more often
than the other way around] [, when that candidate is compared to every
other continuing candidate one by one], then that candidate will be
elected. ...
One way to simplify the wording when pairwise counting is involved -- as
it is here -- is to refer to "more than half the ballots."
Accordingly, here is an alternate wording for the above sentence:
In each round, if there is a not-yet-eliminated candidate who is ranked
higher on more than half the ballots when that candidate is compared to
each and every one of the other not-yet-eliminated candidates on a
pairwise (one-on-one) basis, then that pairwise-winning candidate shall
be elected.
I'll again repeat my point that the wordings being proposed do not
specify what to do with ballots that rank more than one candidate at the
same preference level. If voting will be done electronically then this
issue will only affect the few ballots submitted by mail (such as from
people overseas in military service), but otherwise this gap will allow
many, many ballots to be discarded as "spoiled" even though they are
marked in a reasonable way.
Again, good luck getting at least some improvements.
Richard Fobes
On 12/4/2019 7:26 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>
>
>> On December 4, 2019 9:50 PM Juho Laatu <juho.laatu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in rounds. In each round, if one of the continuing candidates is preferred [in the ranked ballots] over any other continuing candidate [more often than the other way around] [, when that candidate is compared to every other continuing candidate one by one], then that candidate will be elected. If there is no such candidate, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest, and the candidate with the fewest votes shall be eliminated.
>>
>
> The language in the brackets "more often than the other way around" needs to be different.
>
> Juho, if you could take the following original and graft your (3) into it, that makes it something to compare to.
>
> Here is their (non-Condorcet RCV) original:
>
> ________________________________________________________
>
> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, for the purpose of placing a charter change question on the March 3, 2020 town meeting election ballot, the City Council hereby refers the following question amending City Charter § 5 to its Charter Change Committee for review and recommendation to the full City Council by its December 16, 2019 meeting, in order to reintroduce ranked choice voting for the election of the City’s mayor, city councilors, and school commissioners:
>
> § 5 Election to be by ballot; method of election:
>
> All elections of mayor, city councilors and school commissioners shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked choice voting without a separate runoff election. The chief administrative officer shall implement a
> ranked choice voting protocol according to these guidelines:
> (1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference.
> (2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.
> (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff retabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff retabulation shall be conducted in rounds. In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest. The candidate with the fewest votes after each round shall be eliminated until only two candidates remain, with the candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
> (4) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.
> ________________________________________________________
>
>
> Here is my latest BTR-STV stab at it:
>
> ________________________________________________________
>
> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, for the purpose of placing a charter change question on the March 3, 2020 town meeting election ballot, the City Council hereby refers the following question amending City Charter § 5 to its Charter Change Committee for review and recommendation to the full City Council by its December 16, 2019 meeting, in order to reintroduce ranked choice voting for the election of the City’s mayor, city councilors, and school commissioners:
>
> § 5 Election to be by ballot; method of election:
>
> All elections of mayor, city councilors and school commissioners shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked choice voting without a separate runoff election. The chief administrative officer shall implement a ranked choice voting protocol according to these guidelines:
> (1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference.
> (2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.
> (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff retabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff retabulation shall be conducted in sequential rounds. A "remaining candidate" is defined as a candidate that has not been eliminated in any previous round. Initially, no candidate is eliminated and all candidates begin as remaining candidates.
> (4) In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever remaining candidate the voter has ranked highest. The two candidates with the fewest votes in a round, herein designated as "A" and "B", shall be compared in a runoff in which the candidate, A or B, with lesser voter support is eliminated in the current round. If the number of ballots having A ranked higher than B exceeds the number of ballots having B ranked higher than A, then B has lesser voter support, B is eliminated, and A remains for the following round. Likewise, if the number of ballots having B ranked higher than A exceeds the number of ballots having A ranked higher than B, then A has lesser voter support, A is eliminated, and B remains for the following round. In the case that the aforementioned measure of voter support between A and B is tied, then the candidate with fewest votes is eliminated in the current round.
> (5) This runoff retabulation, eliminating one candidate each round, is repeated until only two candidates remain, with the candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
> (6) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.
> ________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
>
>
>
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
>
RB
robert bristow-johnson
Thu, Dec 5, 2019 5:09 AM
On December 4, 2019 11:50 PM VoteFair electionmethods@votefair.org wrote:
In each round, if there is a not-yet-eliminated candidate who is ranked
higher on more than half the ballots when that candidate is compared to
each and every one of the other not-yet-eliminated candidates on a
pairwise (one-on-one) basis, then that pairwise-winning candidate shall
be elected.
need to define the "pairwise-winning candidate".
I'll again repeat my point that the wordings being proposed do not
specify what to do with ballots that rank more than one candidate at the
same preference level.
Even though for a pure Condorcet, equal ranking is allowed, this does not work for IRV because, when a single candidate is promoted to a voter's effective (contingency) first choice, IRV would not know which of the equally-ranked candidates to promote. That was clear in previous implementations of IRV. I am not sure that this languages needs to be on the ballot where voters consider and approve (or reject) IRV. But it must be on the Instructions to Voters on each ballot.
If voting will be done electronically then this
issue will only affect the few ballots submitted by mail (such as from
people overseas in military service), but otherwise this gap will allow
many, many ballots to be discarded as "spoiled" even though they are
marked in a reasonable way.
I believe our paper-scan IRV software in 2009 was able to handle gaps in the ranking. You could rank #1, #2, then #5 and if no other ranks are marked, the #5 rank is effectively #3. All unranked candidates are tied for last place.
Again, good luck getting at least some improvements.
Thank you. We shall see.
Just now I sent the working language I had to the city councilors for consideration. Dunno if they'll listen.
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
> On December 4, 2019 11:50 PM VoteFair <electionmethods@votefair.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> In each round, if there is a not-yet-eliminated candidate who is ranked
> higher on more than half the ballots when that candidate is compared to
> each and every one of the other not-yet-eliminated candidates on a
> pairwise (one-on-one) basis, then that pairwise-winning candidate shall
> be elected.
need to define the "pairwise-winning candidate".
> I'll again repeat my point that the wordings being proposed do not
> specify what to do with ballots that rank more than one candidate at the
> same preference level.
Even though for a pure Condorcet, equal ranking is allowed, this does not work for IRV because, when a single candidate is promoted to a voter's effective (contingency) first choice, IRV would not know which of the equally-ranked candidates to promote. That was clear in previous implementations of IRV. I am not sure that this languages needs to be on the ballot where voters consider and approve (or reject) IRV. But it must be on the Instructions to Voters on each ballot.
> If voting will be done electronically then this
> issue will only affect the few ballots submitted by mail (such as from
> people overseas in military service), but otherwise this gap will allow
> many, many ballots to be discarded as "spoiled" even though they are
> marked in a reasonable way.
I believe our paper-scan IRV software in 2009 was able to handle gaps in the ranking. You could rank #1, #2, then #5 and if no other ranks are marked, the #5 rank is effectively #3. All unranked candidates are tied for last place.
> Again, good luck getting at least some improvements.
Thank you. We shall see.
Just now I sent the working language I had to the city councilors for consideration. Dunno if they'll listen.
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
V
VoteFair
Thu, Dec 5, 2019 6:44 AM
On 12/4/2019 9:09 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
need to define the "pairwise-winning candidate".
Would this work?
In each round, if there is a not-yet-eliminated candidate who is ranked
higher on more than half the ballots when that candidate is compared to
each and every one of the other not-yet-eliminated candidates on a
pairwise (one-on-one) basis, then this candidate shall be identified as
the pairwise-winning candidate, and this pairwise-winning candidate
shall be elected.
Even though for a pure Condorcet, equal ranking is allowed, this
does not work for IRV ...
I concede that this issue of equal ranking is not worth your efforts in
this situation.
However, to participants in this forum I want to clarify that IRV can
use fractional votes. Such IRV software would need to look through the
ballots after each elimination round to determine how much weight (such
as 0.25 if there are still 4 candidates ranked at the same preference
level) is given to each candidate. The sum of the votes, including
fractional votes, determines which candidate gets the fewest votes.
BTW "fractional" votes does not refer to using fractions, but rather
refers to splitting a three-way equal ranking into decimal equivalents
such as 0.33 for one candidate and 0.33 for a second candidate and 0.33
for a third candidate. (Using actual fractions in software would be a
nightmare.)
I agree that fractional votes in STV (rather than IRV) would be a much
bigger problem -- but even then I believe there are ways to avoid
tossing out a ballot that uses equal rankings.
Yes, such software requires more work, but it only needs to be done once
by one person.
Credibility for this opinion is based on my experience writing IRV
counting code for use at VoteFair.org for comparison with VoteFair
ranking results. Yes, IRV calculations are very messy when they are done
right. (Using a "look-ahead" approach even ties can be handled nicely.)
Yet IMO laziness is not a valid excuse when developing good software.
Robert, thank you for considering my wording suggestions.
Richard Fobes
On 12/4/2019 9:09 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On December 4, 2019 11:50 PM VoteFair electionmethods@votefair.org wrote:
In each round, if there is a not-yet-eliminated candidate who is ranked
higher on more than half the ballots when that candidate is compared to
each and every one of the other not-yet-eliminated candidates on a
pairwise (one-on-one) basis, then that pairwise-winning candidate shall
be elected.
need to define the "pairwise-winning candidate".
I'll again repeat my point that the wordings being proposed do not
specify what to do with ballots that rank more than one candidate at the
same preference level.
Even though for a pure Condorcet, equal ranking is allowed, this does not work for IRV because, when a single candidate is promoted to a voter's effective (contingency) first choice, IRV would not know which of the equally-ranked candidates to promote. That was clear in previous implementations of IRV. I am not sure that this languages needs to be on the ballot where voters consider and approve (or reject) IRV. But it must be on the Instructions to Voters on each ballot.
If voting will be done electronically then this
issue will only affect the few ballots submitted by mail (such as from
people overseas in military service), but otherwise this gap will allow
many, many ballots to be discarded as "spoiled" even though they are
marked in a reasonable way.
I believe our paper-scan IRV software in 2009 was able to handle gaps in the ranking. You could rank #1, #2, then #5 and if no other ranks are marked, the #5 rank is effectively #3. All unranked candidates are tied for last place.
Again, good luck getting at least some improvements.
Thank you. We shall see.
Just now I sent the working language I had to the city councilors for consideration. Dunno if they'll listen.
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
On 12/4/2019 9:09 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> need to define the "pairwise-winning candidate".
Would this work?
In each round, if there is a not-yet-eliminated candidate who is ranked
higher on more than half the ballots when that candidate is compared to
each and every one of the other not-yet-eliminated candidates on a
pairwise (one-on-one) basis, then this candidate shall be identified as
the pairwise-winning candidate, and this pairwise-winning candidate
shall be elected.
> Even though for a pure Condorcet, equal ranking is allowed, this
> does not work for IRV ...
I concede that this issue of equal ranking is not worth your efforts in
this situation.
However, to participants in this forum I want to clarify that IRV can
use fractional votes. Such IRV software would need to look through the
ballots after each elimination round to determine how much weight (such
as 0.25 if there are still 4 candidates ranked at the same preference
level) is given to each candidate. The sum of the votes, including
fractional votes, determines which candidate gets the fewest votes.
BTW "fractional" votes does not refer to using fractions, but rather
refers to splitting a three-way equal ranking into decimal equivalents
such as 0.33 for one candidate and 0.33 for a second candidate and 0.33
for a third candidate. (Using actual fractions in software would be a
nightmare.)
I agree that fractional votes in STV (rather than IRV) would be a much
bigger problem -- but even then I believe there are ways to avoid
tossing out a ballot that uses equal rankings.
Yes, such software requires more work, but it only needs to be done once
by one person.
Credibility for this opinion is based on my experience writing IRV
counting code for use at VoteFair.org for comparison with VoteFair
ranking results. Yes, IRV calculations are very messy when they are done
right. (Using a "look-ahead" approach even ties can be handled nicely.)
Yet IMO laziness is not a valid excuse when developing good software.
Robert, thank you for considering my wording suggestions.
Richard Fobes
On 12/4/2019 9:09 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
>
>
>> On December 4, 2019 11:50 PM VoteFair <electionmethods@votefair.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> In each round, if there is a not-yet-eliminated candidate who is ranked
>> higher on more than half the ballots when that candidate is compared to
>> each and every one of the other not-yet-eliminated candidates on a
>> pairwise (one-on-one) basis, then that pairwise-winning candidate shall
>> be elected.
>
> need to define the "pairwise-winning candidate".
>
>> I'll again repeat my point that the wordings being proposed do not
>> specify what to do with ballots that rank more than one candidate at the
>> same preference level.
>
> Even though for a pure Condorcet, equal ranking is allowed, this does not work for IRV because, when a single candidate is promoted to a voter's effective (contingency) first choice, IRV would not know which of the equally-ranked candidates to promote. That was clear in previous implementations of IRV. I am not sure that this languages needs to be on the ballot where voters consider and approve (or reject) IRV. But it must be on the Instructions to Voters on each ballot.
>
>> If voting will be done electronically then this
>> issue will only affect the few ballots submitted by mail (such as from
>> people overseas in military service), but otherwise this gap will allow
>> many, many ballots to be discarded as "spoiled" even though they are
>> marked in a reasonable way.
>
> I believe our paper-scan IRV software in 2009 was able to handle gaps in the ranking. You could rank #1, #2, then #5 and if no other ranks are marked, the #5 rank is effectively #3. All unranked candidates are tied for last place.
>
>> Again, good luck getting at least some improvements.
>
> Thank you. We shall see.
>
> Just now I sent the working language I had to the city councilors for consideration. Dunno if they'll listen.
>
> --
>
> r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
>
JL
Juho Laatu
Thu, Dec 5, 2019 1:04 PM
I used the formulation in your first mail as a basis. It seems to be the same as the original in the mail below, except that it uses twice word "re-tabulation" instead of "retabulation". Technically I kept all the text identical (starting from "All elections of mayor ...", including all the four sections), except that there were some changes in section (3). My intention was to keep as much of the original text as possible to make your job of explaining the differences easy, and to make it easy to accept the new proposal. Also in section (3) the beginning part of the text is the same as before, and only the end (starting from "each voter’s ballot shall count ..." in the original version) has been rearranged, and some text added. The changed part starts with "if one of the continuing candidates is preferred ...".
The only change to the original proposal below is thus to replace section (3) with the proposed new section (3). (and maybe to use term "retabulation")
The language in the brackets "more often than the other way around" needs to be different.
I tried to keep the text as short as possible. If that optional part of text is needed, maybe there is some better formulation. If a longer and more straight forward version is needed, maybe something like "in more ballots than the other candidate is preferred over this candidate".
If you need even more text, then that whole sentence ("In each round ... ... will be elected.") could be replaced with something like: "In each round every continuing candidate is compared separately to every other continuing candidate. if a candidate is ranked higher in higher number of ballots than the other candidate is ranked higher than this candidate, then this candidate is said to be preferred over the other candidate. If one continuing candidate is preferred over all other continuing candidates, then that candidate will be elected."
In my proposal I used also text "[, when that candidate is compared to every other continuing candidate one by one]" instead of a possible short expression "[, in pairwise comparisons]". I note this just because you commented use of term "pairwise" in another mail.
BR, Juho
On December 4, 2019 9:50 PM Juho Laatu juho.laatu@gmail.com wrote:
(3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in rounds. In each round, if one of the continuing candidates is preferred [in the ranked ballots] over any other continuing candidate [more often than the other way around] [, when that candidate is compared to every other continuing candidate one by one], then that candidate will be elected. If there is no such candidate, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest, and the candidate with the fewest votes shall be eliminated.
The language in the brackets "more often than the other way around" needs to be different.
Juho, if you could take the following original and graft your (3) into it, that makes it something to compare to.
Here is their (non-Condorcet RCV) original:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, for the purpose of placing a charter change question on the March 3, 2020 town meeting election ballot, the City Council hereby refers the following question amending City Charter § 5 to its Charter Change Committee for review and recommendation to the full City Council by its December 16, 2019 meeting, in order to reintroduce ranked choice voting for the election of the City’s mayor, city councilors, and school commissioners:
§ 5 Election to be by ballot; method of election:
All elections of mayor, city councilors and school commissioners shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked choice voting without a separate runoff election. The chief administrative officer shall implement a
ranked choice voting protocol according to these guidelines:
(1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference.
(2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.
(3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff retabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff retabulation shall be conducted in rounds. In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest. The candidate with the fewest votes after each round shall be eliminated until only two candidates remain, with the candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
(4) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.
Here is my latest BTR-STV stab at it:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, for the purpose of placing a charter change question on the March 3, 2020 town meeting election ballot, the City Council hereby refers the following question amending City Charter § 5 to its Charter Change Committee for review and recommendation to the full City Council by its December 16, 2019 meeting, in order to reintroduce ranked choice voting for the election of the City’s mayor, city councilors, and school commissioners:
§ 5 Election to be by ballot; method of election:
All elections of mayor, city councilors and school commissioners shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked choice voting without a separate runoff election. The chief administrative officer shall implement a ranked choice voting protocol according to these guidelines:
(1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference.
(2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.
(3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff retabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff retabulation shall be conducted in sequential rounds. A "remaining candidate" is defined as a candidate that has not been eliminated in any previous round. Initially, no candidate is eliminated and all candidates begin as remaining candidates.
(4) In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever remaining candidate the voter has ranked highest. The two candidates with the fewest votes in a round, herein designated as "A" and "B", shall be compared in a runoff in which the candidate, A or B, with lesser voter support is eliminated in the current round. If the number of ballots having A ranked higher than B exceeds the number of ballots having B ranked higher than A, then B has lesser voter support, B is eliminated, and A remains for the following round. Likewise, if the number of ballots having B ranked higher than A exceeds the number of ballots having A ranked higher than B, then A has lesser voter support, A is eliminated, and B remains for the following round. In the case that the aforementioned measure of voter support between A and B is tied, then the candidate with fewest votes is eliminated in the current round.
(5) This runoff retabulation, eliminating one candidate each round, is repeated until only two candidates remain, with the candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
(6) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
I used the formulation in your first mail as a basis. It seems to be the same as the original in the mail below, except that it uses twice word "re-tabulation" instead of "retabulation". Technically I kept all the text identical (starting from "All elections of mayor ...", including all the four sections), except that there were some changes in section (3). My intention was to keep as much of the original text as possible to make your job of explaining the differences easy, and to make it easy to accept the new proposal. Also in section (3) the beginning part of the text is the same as before, and only the end (starting from "each voter’s ballot shall count ..." in the original version) has been rearranged, and some text added. The changed part starts with "if one of the continuing candidates is preferred ...".
The only change to the original proposal below is thus to replace section (3) with the proposed new section (3). (and maybe to use term "retabulation")
> The language in the brackets "more often than the other way around" needs to be different.
I tried to keep the text as short as possible. If that optional part of text is needed, maybe there is some better formulation. If a longer and more straight forward version is needed, maybe something like "in more ballots than the other candidate is preferred over this candidate".
If you need even more text, then that whole sentence ("In each round ... ... will be elected.") could be replaced with something like: "In each round every continuing candidate is compared separately to every other continuing candidate. if a candidate is ranked higher in higher number of ballots than the other candidate is ranked higher than this candidate, then this candidate is said to be preferred over the other candidate. If one continuing candidate is preferred over all other continuing candidates, then that candidate will be elected."
In my proposal I used also text "[, when that candidate is compared to every other continuing candidate one by one]" instead of a possible short expression "[, in pairwise comparisons]". I note this just because you commented use of term "pairwise" in another mail.
BR, Juho
> On 05 Dec 2019, at 05:26, robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On December 4, 2019 9:50 PM Juho Laatu <juho.laatu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff re-tabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff re-tabulation shall be conducted in rounds. In each round, if one of the continuing candidates is preferred [in the ranked ballots] over any other continuing candidate [more often than the other way around] [, when that candidate is compared to every other continuing candidate one by one], then that candidate will be elected. If there is no such candidate, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest, and the candidate with the fewest votes shall be eliminated.
>>
>
> The language in the brackets "more often than the other way around" needs to be different.
>
> Juho, if you could take the following original and graft your (3) into it, that makes it something to compare to.
>
> Here is their (non-Condorcet RCV) original:
>
> ________________________________________________________
>
> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, for the purpose of placing a charter change question on the March 3, 2020 town meeting election ballot, the City Council hereby refers the following question amending City Charter § 5 to its Charter Change Committee for review and recommendation to the full City Council by its December 16, 2019 meeting, in order to reintroduce ranked choice voting for the election of the City’s mayor, city councilors, and school commissioners:
>
> § 5 Election to be by ballot; method of election:
>
> All elections of mayor, city councilors and school commissioners shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked choice voting without a separate runoff election. The chief administrative officer shall implement a
> ranked choice voting protocol according to these guidelines:
> (1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference.
> (2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.
> (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff retabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff retabulation shall be conducted in rounds. In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever continuing candidate the voter has ranked highest. The candidate with the fewest votes after each round shall be eliminated until only two candidates remain, with the candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
> (4) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.
> ________________________________________________________
>
>
> Here is my latest BTR-STV stab at it:
>
> ________________________________________________________
>
> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, for the purpose of placing a charter change question on the March 3, 2020 town meeting election ballot, the City Council hereby refers the following question amending City Charter § 5 to its Charter Change Committee for review and recommendation to the full City Council by its December 16, 2019 meeting, in order to reintroduce ranked choice voting for the election of the City’s mayor, city councilors, and school commissioners:
>
> § 5 Election to be by ballot; method of election:
>
> All elections of mayor, city councilors and school commissioners shall be by ballot, using a system of ranked choice voting without a separate runoff election. The chief administrative officer shall implement a ranked choice voting protocol according to these guidelines:
> (1) The ballot shall give voters the option of ranking candidates in order of preference.
> (2) If a candidate receives a majority (over 50 percent) of first preferences, that candidate is elected.
> (3) If no candidate receives a majority of first preferences, an instant runoff retabulation shall be performed by the presiding election officer. The instant runoff retabulation shall be conducted in sequential rounds. A "remaining candidate" is defined as a candidate that has not been eliminated in any previous round. Initially, no candidate is eliminated and all candidates begin as remaining candidates.
> (4) In each round, each voter’s ballot shall count as a single vote for whichever remaining candidate the voter has ranked highest. The two candidates with the fewest votes in a round, herein designated as "A" and "B", shall be compared in a runoff in which the candidate, A or B, with lesser voter support is eliminated in the current round. If the number of ballots having A ranked higher than B exceeds the number of ballots having B ranked higher than A, then B has lesser voter support, B is eliminated, and A remains for the following round. Likewise, if the number of ballots having B ranked higher than A exceeds the number of ballots having A ranked higher than B, then A has lesser voter support, A is eliminated, and B remains for the following round. In the case that the aforementioned measure of voter support between A and B is tied, then the candidate with fewest votes is eliminated in the current round.
> (5) This runoff retabulation, eliminating one candidate each round, is repeated until only two candidates remain, with the candidate then receiving the greatest number of votes being elected.
> (6) The city council may adopt additional regulations consistent with this subsection to implement these standards.
> ________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
>
>
>
>
> "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list info
GD
Greg Dennis
Fri, Dec 6, 2019 2:50 AM
Agreed.
It seems like a bit of revisionist history to portray the cause of the
repeal to be the failure to elect the Condorcet candidate. As has been
noted, the repeal effort was led by the Republican Wright and his allies
who felt that he should have won because he had the most first choices.
Among the three leading candidates Wright was the Condorcet loser; his
supporters wanted a plurality result, a result even further removed from
any sense of majority. By electing Kiss, at least IRV chose a candidate in
the smallest mutual majority set.
Wright supporters didn't like the idea of a winner who in their mind "came
in second," and you wouldn't have placated them by electing someone who
(again, in their mind) "came in third." If anything, you probably would
have been in a more precarious political situation.
Let's also remember that there was not widespread displeasure with the
result in the immediate aftermath of the election. The Republicans were not
happy, sure, but it was only after Kiss' Burlington Telecom scandal that
the broader public turned against him. Burlington lacked a mayoral recall
process, and Wright and his supporters were able to successfully make the
IRV repeal effort into a referendum on the mayor. It was an insincere but
savvy political hit job at a time where IRV was still perceived as new and
exotic to many.
For what it's worth, there have been about 250 IRV elections in the US
since San Francisco started using it in 2004, many of which were highly
contested between three or more candidates, and that Burlington 2009 race
remains the one and only one where the Condorcet candidate was not elected.
It seems to me that if you care about the Condorcet candidate winning, IRV
is a big step forward to that end.
Greg
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019, 8:21 PM C.Benham cbenham@adam.com.au wrote:
I think that making sure that the voters can strictly rank from the top
however many candidates they wish is more important
than making sure the method elects the voted Condorcet winner.
I think that IRV/RCV (with one-at-a-time elimination) that meets that
requirement has the most merit relative to its traction and
comprehensibility.
But if we do want to insist on compliance with the Condorcet criterion,
necessarily at the expense of making the making the method vulnerable to
Burying
strategy and losing compliance with the (popular with IRV supporters)
Later-no-Harm criterion, then I don't like Bottom-Two Runoff.
It would be much better to check before each normal IRV-style
elimination that the candidate you are considering eliminating doesn't
pairwise-beat all the
remaining candidates. If it does the process should stop and that
candidate should win.
That would be a quite good Condorcet method.
Chris Benham
On 4/12/2019 9:26 am, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On December 3, 2019 5:13 PM Juho Laatu juho.laatu@gmail.com wrote:
My simple thoughts on this:
- You ask: Do you agree that in problematic situations, like what
happened in 2009, the result should be different?
- They answer: Yes.
- You say: This is a problem that is fortunately quite easily to fix.
The most straight forward way to enhance the method is to use the
Bottom-Two Runoff. The losing candidate one of the two candidates with
least votes will be eliminated.
- They say: Ok, let's see if that would be our ideal solution.
- You say: Ok, let's start from there.
Juho, this is exactly my strategy. But there is a little bit of an
issue about "let's start from there". Here is the latest news regarding
yesterday's Council meeting and RCV:
What has happened is that the Progs have "succeeded" in fending off an
amendment to take more time and investigate alternatives to the IRV method
of RCV. They want, really badly, to get this on the ballot for this coming
Town Meeting Day in March 2020. The latest that the Council can decide to
include this on the ballot is in 13 days. And in 6 days is when the
Charter Change Committee will consider this proposed ballot item, fix any
language, and recommend it to the Council on Dec 16.
I am afraid that putting this on the ballot "half-baked", with
effectively no change from what we had in 2009 and acknowledging no error
from the 2009 election, will result in March in rejection by the majority
of voters and will, again, set back voting reform for another decade. So I
want to make a good effort at changing the language from regular-old IRV to
BTR-STV. And hopefully get that change adopted by the Charter Change
Committee and sent up to the Council to consider for inclusion on the
ballot. Then we can tell voters that this IRV is different from the 2009
IRV and would have corrected the failure of IRV we had in 2009.
I believe that Schulze is technically the best RCV, but since Schulze
and Ranked-Pairs will elect the same candidate when the Smith set is 3
candidates or fewer, my favorite would be RP using margins for a
governmental election because its method is easier to understand and encode
into legal language that laypersons can read and understand. Also, we
would be able to say to the IRV haters that this RP RCV is not IRV at all.
However, we can't say that about BTR-STV because, after all, it is a
form of Instant Runoff Voting, but and IRV method that will elect the
Pairwise Champion (the term that I will use to denote the Condorcet
Winner). But, given the circumstances (that an IRV proposal is in the
works right now), I think this is the best action I can hope to take. I
would have to admit that this Condorcet-compliant IRV is still IRV. The
Progs won't mind and other naive RCV supporters won't mind, but the IRV
haters, particularly those who hated the IRV winner in 2009 will always
hate IRV or any RCV, but I would still rather be promoting an RCV that is
not IRV (no runoff rounds).
I am taking Kristofer's language suggestions and possibly modifying. I
would like to see language suggestions from others. Either way, I will
post what language I finally will submit to the Charter Change Committee.
They will probably reject my submission, but I will tell them plainly that
if they are offering RCV that is no different from the IRV that resulted in
the 2009 failure and was repealed by voters the following year, that their
proposed charter change will be rejected by the majority of voters on Town
Meeting Day. And this will likely set back voting reform by another decade.
and also to you, Juho. i am appreciative of any help or language or
analysis suggestions from you or anyone.
Agreed.
It seems like a bit of revisionist history to portray the cause of the
repeal to be the failure to elect the Condorcet candidate. As has been
noted, the repeal effort was led by the Republican Wright and his allies
who felt that he should have won because he had the most first choices.
Among the three leading candidates Wright was the Condorcet _loser_; his
supporters wanted a plurality result, a result even further removed from
any sense of majority. By electing Kiss, at least IRV chose a candidate in
the smallest mutual majority set.
Wright supporters didn't like the idea of a winner who in their mind "came
in second," and you wouldn't have placated them by electing someone who
(again, in their mind) "came in third." If anything, you probably would
have been in a more precarious political situation.
Let's also remember that there was _not_ widespread displeasure with the
result in the immediate aftermath of the election. The Republicans were not
happy, sure, but it was only after Kiss' Burlington Telecom scandal that
the broader public turned against him. Burlington lacked a mayoral recall
process, and Wright and his supporters were able to successfully make the
IRV repeal effort into a referendum on the mayor. It was an insincere but
savvy political hit job at a time where IRV was still perceived as new and
exotic to many.
For what it's worth, there have been about 250 IRV elections in the US
since San Francisco started using it in 2004, many of which were highly
contested between three or more candidates, and that Burlington 2009 race
remains the one and only one where the Condorcet candidate was not elected.
It seems to me that if you care about the Condorcet candidate winning, IRV
is a big step forward to that end.
Greg
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019, 8:21 PM C.Benham <cbenham@adam.com.au> wrote:
> I think that making sure that the voters can strictly rank from the top
> however many candidates they wish is more important
> than making sure the method elects the voted Condorcet winner.
>
> I think that IRV/RCV (with one-at-a-time elimination) that meets that
> requirement has the most merit relative to its traction and
> comprehensibility.
>
> But if we do want to insist on compliance with the Condorcet criterion,
> necessarily at the expense of making the making the method vulnerable to
> Burying
> strategy and losing compliance with the (popular with IRV supporters)
> Later-no-Harm criterion, then I don't like Bottom-Two Runoff.
>
> It would be much better to check before each normal IRV-style
> elimination that the candidate you are considering eliminating doesn't
> pairwise-beat all the
> remaining candidates. If it does the process should stop and that
> candidate should win.
>
> That would be a quite good Condorcet method.
>
> Chris Benham
>
>
> On 4/12/2019 9:26 am, robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> >
> >> On December 3, 2019 5:13 PM Juho Laatu <juho.laatu@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> My simple thoughts on this:
> >>
> >> - You ask: Do you agree that in problematic situations, like what
> happened in 2009, the result should be different?
> >> - They answer: Yes.
> >> - You say: This is a problem that is fortunately quite easily to fix.
> The most straight forward way to enhance the method is to use the
> Bottom-Two Runoff. The losing candidate one of the two candidates with
> least votes will be eliminated.
> >> - They say: Ok, let's see if that would be our ideal solution.
> >> - You say: Ok, let's start from there.
> >>
> > Juho, this is **exactly** my strategy. But there is a little bit of an
> issue about "let's start from there". Here is the latest news regarding
> yesterday's Council meeting and RCV:
> >
> >
> https://vtdigger.org/2019/12/03/burlington-considers-instant-runoff-voting-for-most-city-races/
> >
> > What has happened is that the Progs have "succeeded" in fending off an
> amendment to take more time and investigate alternatives to the IRV method
> of RCV. They want, really badly, to get this on the ballot for this coming
> Town Meeting Day in March 2020. The latest that the Council can decide to
> include this on the ballot is in 13 days. And in 6 days is when the
> Charter Change Committee will consider this proposed ballot item, fix any
> language, and recommend it to the Council on Dec 16.
> >
> > I am afraid that putting this on the ballot "half-baked", with
> effectively no change from what we had in 2009 and acknowledging no error
> from the 2009 election, will result in March in rejection by the majority
> of voters and will, again, set back voting reform for another decade. So I
> want to make a good effort at changing the language from regular-old IRV to
> BTR-STV. And hopefully get that change adopted by the Charter Change
> Committee and sent up to the Council to consider for inclusion on the
> ballot. Then we can tell voters that this IRV is different from the 2009
> IRV and would have corrected the failure of IRV we had in 2009.
> >
> > I believe that Schulze is technically the best RCV, but since Schulze
> and Ranked-Pairs will elect the same candidate when the Smith set is 3
> candidates or fewer, my favorite would be RP using margins for a
> governmental election because its method is easier to understand and encode
> into legal language that laypersons can read and understand. Also, we
> would be able to say to the IRV haters that this RP RCV is not IRV at all.
> >
> > However, we can't say that about BTR-STV because, after all, it *is* a
> form of Instant Runoff Voting, but and IRV method that *will* elect the
> Pairwise Champion (the term that I will use to denote the Condorcet
> Winner). But, given the circumstances (that an IRV proposal is in the
> works right now), I think this is the best action I can hope to take. I
> would have to admit that this Condorcet-compliant IRV is still IRV. The
> Progs won't mind and other naive RCV supporters won't mind, but the IRV
> haters, particularly those who hated the IRV winner in 2009 will always
> hate IRV or any RCV, but I would still rather be promoting an RCV that is
> *not* IRV (no runoff rounds).
> >
> > I am taking Kristofer's language suggestions and possibly modifying. I
> would like to see language suggestions from others. Either way, I will
> post what language I finally will submit to the Charter Change Committee.
> They will probably reject my submission, but I will tell them plainly that
> if they are offering RCV that is no different from the IRV that resulted in
> the 2009 failure and was repealed by voters the following year, that their
> proposed charter change will be rejected by the majority of voters on Town
> Meeting Day. And this will likely set back voting reform by another decade.
> >
> >> BR, Juho
> > and also to you, Juho. i am appreciative of any help or language or
> analysis suggestions from you or anyone.
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
> >
> > "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
> > ----
> > Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
> info
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see https://electorama.com/em for list
> info
>
KM
Kristofer Munsterhjelm
Fri, Dec 6, 2019 9:42 AM
On 06/12/2019 03.50, Greg Dennis wrote:
Agreed.
It seems like a bit of revisionist history to portray the cause of the
repeal to be the failure to elect the Condorcet candidate. As has been
noted, the repeal effort was led by the Republican Wright and his allies
who felt that he should have won because he had the most first choices.
Among the three leading candidates Wright was the Condorcet loser; his
supporters wanted a plurality result, a result even further removed from
any sense of majority. By electing Kiss, at least IRV chose a candidate
in the smallest mutual majority set.
Wright supporters didn't like the idea of a winner who in their mind
"came in second," and you wouldn't have placated them by electing
someone who (again, in their mind) "came in third." If anything, you
probably would have been in a more precarious political situation.
On the other hand, when the method fails to elect the CW, it gives
opponents a group of allies almost immediately: namely, the majority who
preferred the CW to whoever was elected. If the CW is elected, there
is no such majority (by definition), and anti-repeal forces would have
to compose multiple majorities together.
The point that the recall was a "hit job" kind of reinforces the point.
If Montroll was a better liked candidate in the Condorcet sense, then it
would presumably have been harder to arrange a hit against him.
For what it's worth, there have been about 250 IRV elections in the US
since San Francisco started using it in 2004, many of which were highly
contested between three or more candidates, and that Burlington 2009
race remains the one and only one where the Condorcet candidate was not
elected. It seems to me that if you care about the Condorcet candidate
winning, IRV is a big step forward to that end.
A Condorcetist would probably say that this only supports his point. If
the chance that IRV is repealed is lower whenever the CW is elected,
then it's important to elect the CW, so why not ensure that the CW is
elected whenever he exists?
(There are two not very complex ways of doing so, as this thread has
shown: Benham and BTR-IRV. So I don't really see the reason not to. Is
this about later-no-harm?)
On 06/12/2019 03.50, Greg Dennis wrote:
> Agreed.
>
> It seems like a bit of revisionist history to portray the cause of the
> repeal to be the failure to elect the Condorcet candidate. As has been
> noted, the repeal effort was led by the Republican Wright and his allies
> who felt that he should have won because he had the most first choices.
> Among the three leading candidates Wright was the Condorcet _loser_; his
> supporters wanted a plurality result, a result even further removed from
> any sense of majority. By electing Kiss, at least IRV chose a candidate
> in the smallest mutual majority set.
>
> Wright supporters didn't like the idea of a winner who in their mind
> "came in second," and you wouldn't have placated them by electing
> someone who (again, in their mind) "came in third." If anything, you
> probably would have been in a more precarious political situation.
On the other hand, when the method fails to elect the CW, it gives
opponents a group of allies almost immediately: namely, the majority who
preferred the CW to whoever *was* elected. If the CW is elected, there
is no such majority (by definition), and anti-repeal forces would have
to compose multiple majorities together.
The point that the recall was a "hit job" kind of reinforces the point.
If Montroll was a better liked candidate in the Condorcet sense, then it
would presumably have been harder to arrange a hit against him.
> For what it's worth, there have been about 250 IRV elections in the US
> since San Francisco started using it in 2004, many of which were highly
> contested between three or more candidates, and that Burlington 2009
> race remains the one and only one where the Condorcet candidate was not
> elected. It seems to me that if you care about the Condorcet candidate
> winning, IRV is a big step forward to that end.
A Condorcetist would probably say that this only supports his point. If
the chance that IRV is repealed is lower whenever the CW is elected,
then it's important to elect the CW, so why not ensure that the CW is
elected whenever he exists?
(There are two not very complex ways of doing so, as this thread has
shown: Benham and BTR-IRV. So I don't really see the reason not to. Is
this about later-no-harm?)
F
fdpk69p6uq@snkmail.com
Fri, Dec 6, 2019 12:48 PM
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 9:50 PM Greg Dennis wrote:
It seems like a bit of revisionist history to portray the cause of the
repeal to be the failure to elect the Condorcet candidate. As has been
noted, the repeal effort was led by the Republican Wright and his allies
who felt that he should have won because he had the most first choices.
For what it's worth, there have been about 250 IRV elections in the US
since San Francisco started using it in 2004, many of which were highly
contested between three or more candidates, and that Burlington 2009 race
remains the one and only one where the Condorcet candidate was not elected.
It seems to me that if you care about the Condorcet candidate winning, IRV
is a big step forward to that end.
But in how many of those elections were there more than two strong
candidates? IRV electing the Condorcet winner in a bunch of uncontested
elections isn't especially impressive.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 10:54 AM robert bristow-johnson wrote:
I want to figure out some good language to change this from regular-old
IRV to Bottom-Two Runoff, Single Transferable Vote, BTR-STV . If someone
is good at writing legal language or if this BTR-STV has had legislative
language written for it somewhere else, I would like to see it.
Has BTR-STV been used in the real world or analyzed academically? There
are only two sentences about it on Electowiki.
I know Nanson/Baldwin methods have both going for them, and they're
Condorcet and relatively simple to explain to someone familiar with IRV:
"Instead of eliminating the candidate with the least number of
first-preference votes (which results in vote-splitting and discards some
voters' preferences), you eliminate the candidate with the worst average
ranking."
"In contrast to the Borda rule, our experiments with Baldwin’s and Nanson’s
rules demonstrate that both of them are often more difficult to manipulate
in practice. These results suggest that elimination style voting rules
deserve further study." http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2014.07.005
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 9:50 PM Greg Dennis wrote:
> It seems like a bit of revisionist history to portray the cause of the
> repeal to be the failure to elect the Condorcet candidate. As has been
> noted, the repeal effort was led by the Republican Wright and his allies
> who felt that he should have won because he had the most first choices.
>
The repeal effort was supported by both Republicans (who would win under
FPTP) and Democrats (who would win under Condorcet), no?
"We waited to bring in the signatures because we didn't want this to be
about [Republican] Kurt Wright losing after being ahead, or [Democrat] Andy
Montroll *who had more first and second place votes and didn't win*. We
wanted this to be about IRV."
https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/burlington-residents-seek-repeal-of-instant-runoff-voting/Content?oid=2177125
> For what it's worth, there have been about 250 IRV elections in the US
> since San Francisco started using it in 2004, many of which were highly
> contested between three or more candidates, and that Burlington 2009 race
> remains the one and only one where the Condorcet candidate was not elected.
> It seems to me that if you care about the Condorcet candidate winning, IRV
> is a big step forward to that end.
>
But in how many of those elections were there more than two strong
candidates? IRV electing the Condorcet winner in a bunch of uncontested
elections isn't especially impressive.
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 10:54 AM robert bristow-johnson wrote:
> I want to figure out some good language to change this from regular-old
> IRV to Bottom-Two Runoff, Single Transferable Vote, BTR-STV . If someone
> is good at writing legal language or if this BTR-STV has had legislative
> language written for it somewhere else, I would like to see it.
>
Has BTR-STV been used in the real world or analyzed academically? There
are only two sentences about it on Electowiki.
I know Nanson/Baldwin methods have both going for them, and they're
Condorcet and relatively simple to explain to someone familiar with IRV:
"Instead of eliminating the candidate with the least number of
first-preference votes (which results in vote-splitting and discards some
voters' preferences), you eliminate the candidate with the worst average
ranking."
"In contrast to the Borda rule, our experiments with Baldwin’s and Nanson’s
rules demonstrate that both of them are often more difficult to manipulate
in practice. These results suggest that elimination style voting rules
deserve further study." http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2014.07.005
