RCV in SF Mayoral election
Curious to hear people’s thoughts on some issues.
-
May not elect majority candidate
In SF, we restrict to 3 choices to simplify the process. As the vote
currently stands, 144 votes separate the top two candidates (<0.1%) and
over 16,000 ballots have been exhausted (all 3 choices eliminated). About
9% of voters have been removed from the pool. It is very possible that the
result would have shifted if they had the opportunity to rank a 4th
candidate, and therefore, it is possible that we won’t elect the person who
truly represents the majority. Is this common? This is probably an
abnormally close race. Thoughts? -
What are your thoughts on London Breed’s response to being asked if RCV
is fair? She stated “This is the system we are working with. That’s a
discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck with it.”
- insinuating
it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem in a progressive city
insinuate that first past the post is more fair. It also felt divisive.
If Leno wins, will her supporters feel that democracy prevailed, or that
the election was stolen? She also presents herself as a minority candidate
and it is my understanding that RCV gives minority candidates better
chances and causes all candidates to be more likely to campaign to minority
communities. Am I mistaken? Are there any legitimate arguments that FPTP
can be more fair? Thoughts?
Regards,
—Chris
- May not elect majority candidate
I haven't done an analysis of the cast vote record, but I highly doubt that
additional ranks would have put the winner over a majority of non-blank
ballots. From my experience with past RCV elections, the exhausted ballots
in the final round are largely voters who didn't use all the available
ranks, not those who used all the ranks and saw them all eliminated. If a
voter doesn't use all the ranks, it's an expression of indifference between
the remaining candidates: an abstention from any round not including the
ranked candidates. That's why including all non-blank ballots in the
denominator when determining a "majority" is odd to me: it excludes
abstentions from the first round but includes abstentions from the final
round. My guess is you would find the winner does have a majority if you
exclude all abstentions. Happy for someone to do that analysis.
- What are your thoughts on London Breed’s response to being asked if RCV
is fair?
I don't know, I'd expect most politicians to think systems that benefit
them are "fair" and those that don't as "unfair," so I don't think this
statement carries much of value. My $0.02.
They separated out ballots “exhausted by overvotes” and “under votes” from
“exhausted ballots”. I assumed that meant there were 16,000 ballots
eliminated after all 3 choices were eliminated, but after closer analysis,
it appears you are correct that this includes voters who did not vote for 3
candidates. However, even if only a fraction of the exhausted ballots were
fully ranked and would have ranked more, it probably still surpasses the
144 vote gap currently deciding the election. Though then you would still
need a substantially larger number to actually sway it 144 votes. Still,
the possibility exists.
At start
Over votes: 339
Under votes: 1,149
Exhausted: 0
At end
Over votes: 401
Under votes: 1,149
Exhausted: 16,025
So, an over vote on a second or third rank clearly didn’t invalidate the
vote until that rank was reached. Happened 62 times on later ranks. Only
401 such voting errors is pretty good
Undervotes didn’t change, meaning that my interpretation was wrong.
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 7:21 PM Greg Dennis greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org
wrote:
- May not elect majority candidate
I haven't done an analysis of the cast vote record, but I highly doubt
that additional ranks would have put the winner over a majority of
non-blank ballots. From my experience with past RCV elections, the
exhausted ballots in the final round are largely voters who didn't use all
the available ranks, not those who used all the ranks and saw them all
eliminated. If a voter doesn't use all the ranks, it's an expression of
indifference between the remaining candidates: an abstention from any round
not including the ranked candidates. That's why including all non-blank
ballots in the denominator when determining a "majority" is odd to me: it
excludes abstentions from the first round but includes abstentions from
the final round. My guess is you would find the winner does have a
majority if you exclude all abstentions. Happy for someone to do that
analysis.
- What are your thoughts on London Breed’s response to being asked if RCV
is fair?
I don't know, I'd expect most politicians to think systems that benefit
them are "fair" and those that don't as "unfair," so I don't think this
statement carries much of value. My $0.02.
On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
... She stated “This is the system we are working with. That’s
a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck with it.”
- insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem in a
progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more fair. ...
This remark does not imply support for first past the post (FPTP, a.k.a
plurality counting).
There are other ways to count the preference marks on "ranked-choice"
ballots. In particular, pairwise counting could be used instead of
instant-runoff counting, and that is fairer than FPTP.
- May not elect majority candidate
...
Is this common? This is
probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
I doubt the voters would regard this as a close race if they had been
able to fully rank all the choices. The 3-choice limitation is
simplistic, and complicates the counting.
Pairwise counting does not result in any exhausted ballots. Unmarked
choices are an indication that the choices are equally disliked. And
multiple candidates being marked at the same preference level is also no
problem.
In other words, the ballots contain enough information that they can be
counted in other ways, besides instant-runoff counting. Those alternate
counting methods could reveal a clearer outcome.
In haste,
Richard Fobes
On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
Curious to hear people’s thoughts on some issues.
-
May not elect majority candidate
In SF, we restrict to 3 choices to simplify the process. As the vote
currently stands, 144 votes separate the top two candidates (<0.1%) and
over 16,000 ballots have been exhausted (all 3 choices eliminated).
About 9% of voters have been removed from the pool. It is very possible
that the result would have shifted if they had the opportunity to rank a
4th candidate, and therefore, it is possible that we won’t elect the
person who truly represents the majority. Is this common? This is
probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts? -
What are your thoughts on London Breed’s response to being asked if
RCV is fair? She stated “This is the system we are working with. That’s
a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck with it.”
- insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem in a
progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more fair. It
also felt divisive. If Leno wins, will her supporters feel that
democracy prevailed, or that the election was stolen? She also presents
herself as a minority candidate and it is my understanding that RCV
gives minority candidates better chances and causes all candidates to be
more likely to campaign to minority communities. Am I mistaken? Are
there any legitimate arguments that FPTP can be more fair? Thoughts?
Regards,
—Chris
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Richard, a few points:
the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem.� if someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively "disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice of choosing the
mayor.� however, i think the news media made it clear that the race was really gonna be between Leno, Breed, and Kim, so these fringe voters might have a chance to insincerely mark either Leno or Breed as their 3rd choice and betray their true third choice and, in doing so, have an effect in
the final round.
ignoring the problem of only 3 ranking levels, it is not possible that London Breed is the Condorcet Winner (a.k.a. "pairwise champion").� it might be the case that Mark Leno or Jane Kim is the Condorcet Winner and if the latter is the case, this is another real indictment against STV
or IRV as a method of tallying RCV.� and your reverse namesake, FairVote, is partially (or mostly) to blame.
i wonder if the City of SF has a file of all of the cast and scanned ballots and the full ranking for each.� if so, and if they release it to the public, we can investigate if there is a Condorcet Winner and if that CW is or is not Mark Leno.� this would be
interesting.
L8r,
�
r b-j�
On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
... She stated “This is the system we are working with. That’s
a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck with it.”
- insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem in a
progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more fair. ...
This remark does not imply support for first past the post (FPTP, a.k.a
plurality counting).
There are other ways to count the preference marks on "ranked-choice"
ballots. In particular, pairwise counting could be used instead of
instant-runoff counting, and that is fairer than FPTP.
- May not elect majority candidate
...
Is this common? This is
probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
I doubt the voters would regard this as a close race if they had been
able to fully rank all the choices. The 3-choice limitation is
simplistic, and complicates the counting.
Pairwise counting does not result in any exhausted ballots. Unmarked
choices are an indication that the choices are equally disliked. And
multiple candidates being marked at the same preference level is also no
problem.
In other words, the ballots contain enough information that they can be
counted in other ways, besides instant-runoff counting. Those alternate
counting methods could reveal a clearer outcome.
In haste,
Richard Fobes
On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
Curious to hear people’s thoughts on some issues.
- May not elect majority candidate
In SF, we restrict to 3 choices to simplify the process. As the vote
currently stands, 144 votes separate the top two candidates (<0.1%) and
over 16,000 ballots have been exhausted (all 3 choices eliminated).
About 9% of voters have been removed from the pool. It is very possible
that the result would have shifted if they had the opportunity to rank a
4th candidate, and therefore, it is possible that we won’t elect the
person who truly represents the majority. Is this common? This is
probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
- What are your thoughts on London Breed’s response to being asked if
RCV is fair? She stated “This is the system we are working with. That’s
a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck with it.”
- insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem in a
progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more fair. It
also felt divisive. If Leno wins, will her supporters feel that
democracy prevailed, or that the election was stolen? She also presents
herself as a minority candidate and it is my understanding that RCV
gives minority candidates better chances and causes all candidates to be
more likely to campaign to minority communities. Am I mistaken? Are
there any legitimate arguments that FPTP can be more fair? Thoughts?
Regards,
—Chris
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
�
�
�
--
r b-j� � � � � � � � � � � � �rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
�
�
�
�
San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
https://sfelections.sfgov.org/june-5-2018-election-results-detailed-reports
Based on the most recent analysis of these numbers that I saw, Leno was
indeed the Condorcet winner, and if Breed were to beat Leno in the final
round, she would then necessarily be the Condorcet winner. The probability
of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be exceedingly low in
practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections conducted nationwide since
2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only case so far.
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson <
rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
Richard, a few points:
the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if someone
ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked were either
London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively "disenfranchised" by
being unable to weigh in on the final choice of choosing the mayor.
however, i think the news media made it clear that the race was really
gonna be between Leno, Breed, and Kim, so these fringe voters might have a
chance to insincerely mark either Leno or Breed as their 3rd choice and
betray their true third choice and, in doing so, have an effect in the
final round.
ignoring the problem of only 3 ranking levels, it is not possible that
London Breed is the Condorcet Winner (a.k.a. "pairwise champion"). it
might be the case that Mark Leno or Jane Kim is the Condorcet Winner and if
the latter is the case, this is another real indictment against STV or IRV
as a method of tallying RCV. and your reverse namesake, FairVote, is
partially (or mostly) to blame.
i wonder if the City of SF has a file of all of the cast and scanned
ballots and the full ranking for each. if so, and if they release it to
the public, we can investigate if there is a Condorcet Winner and if that
CW is or is not Mark Leno. this would be interesting.
L8r,
r b-j
On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
... She stated “This is the system we are working with. That’s
a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck with
it.”
- insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem in a
progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more fair. ...
This remark does not imply support for first past the post (FPTP, a.k.a
plurality counting).
There are other ways to count the preference marks on "ranked-choice"
ballots. In particular, pairwise counting could be used instead of
instant-runoff counting, and that is fairer than FPTP.
- May not elect majority candidate
...
Is this common? This is
probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
I doubt the voters would regard this as a close race if they had been
able to fully rank all the choices. The 3-choice limitation is
simplistic, and complicates the counting.
Pairwise counting does not result in any exhausted ballots. Unmarked
choices are an indication that the choices are equally disliked. And
multiple candidates being marked at the same preference level is also no
problem.
In other words, the ballots contain enough information that they can be
counted in other ways, besides instant-runoff counting. Those alternate
counting methods could reveal a clearer outcome.
In haste,
Richard Fobes
On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
Curious to hear people’s thoughts on some issues.
-
May not elect majority candidate
In SF, we restrict to 3 choices to simplify the process. As the vote
currently stands, 144 votes separate the top two candidates (<0.1%) and
over 16,000 ballots have been exhausted (all 3 choices eliminated).
About 9% of voters have been removed from the pool. It is very possible
that the result would have shifted if they had the opportunity to rank a
4th candidate, and therefore, it is possible that we won’t elect the
person who truly represents the majority. Is this common? This is
probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts? -
What are your thoughts on London Breed’s response to being asked if
RCV is fair? She stated “This is the system we are working with. That’s
a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck with it.”
- insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem in a
progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more fair. It
also felt divisive. If Leno wins, will her supporters feel that
democracy prevailed, or that the election was stolen? She also presents
herself as a minority candidate and it is my understanding that RCV
gives minority candidates better chances and causes all candidates to be
more likely to campaign to minority communities. Am I mistaken? Are
there any legitimate arguments that FPTP can be more fair? Thoughts?
Regards,
—Chris
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
info
info
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
--
Greg Dennis, Ph.D. :: Policy Director
Voter Choice Massachusetts
e :: greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org
p :: 617.863.0746
w :: voterchoicema.org
:: Follow us on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/voterchoicema and
Twitter https://twitter.com/voterchoicema ::
On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
https://sfelections.sfgov.org/june-5-2018-election-results-detailed-reports
I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are
categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is
no data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack
enough information to be sure of final results.
Converting instant-runoff counts into pairwise counts might be (probably
is?) possible, but I don't have time to do that analysis.
The probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only
case so far.
Yes, circular ambiguity -- in which there is no Condorcet winner -- is
rare when the number of ballots exceeds a few hundred.
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
<rbj@audioimagination.com mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if
someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
"disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice of
choosing the mayor.
Based on a very quick guesstimate it looks like about 30 or so ballots
had this issue. Right?
That's not a big number, but a fair counting method -- such as pairwise
counting -- would not have to discard any ballots.
The bigger number is "under votes" and admittedly pairwise counting
cannot compensate for a voter saying "here is the only acceptable
choice" (or two choices in this case).
It's great that these results are getting analyzed by people who do not
drink the FairVote kool-aid.
In haste,
Richard Fobes
"The VoteFair guy"
On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
https://sfelections.sfgov.org/june-5-2018-election-results-detailed-reports
Based on the most recent analysis of these numbers that I saw, Leno was
indeed the Condorcet winner, and if Breed were to beat Leno in the final
round, she would then necessarily be the Condorcet winner. The
probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only case so far.
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
<rbj@audioimagination.com mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
Richard, a few points:
the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if
someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
"disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice of
choosing the mayor. however, i think the news media made it clear
that the race was really gonna be between Leno, Breed, and Kim, so
these fringe voters might have a chance to insincerely mark either
Leno or Breed as their 3rd choice and betray their *true* third
choice and, in doing so, have an effect in the final round.
ignoring the problem of only 3 ranking levels, it is not possible
that London Breed is the Condorcet Winner (a.k.a. "pairwise
champion"). it might be the case that Mark Leno or Jane Kim is the
Condorcet Winner and if the latter is the case, this is another real
indictment against STV or IRV as a method of tallying RCV. and your
reverse namesake, FairVote, is partially (or mostly) to blame.
i wonder if the City of SF has a file of all of the cast and scanned
ballots and the full ranking for each. if so, and if they release
it to the public, we can investigate if there is a Condorcet Winner
and if that CW is or is not Mark Leno. this would be interesting.
L8r,
r b-j
On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
... She stated “This is the system we are working with. That’s
a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
with it.”
- insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem
in a
progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more
fair. ...
This remark does not imply support for first past the post (FPTP,
a.k.a
plurality counting).
There are other ways to count the preference marks on "ranked-choice"
ballots. In particular, pairwise counting could be used instead of
instant-runoff counting, and that is fairer than FPTP.
- May not elect majority candidate
...
Is this common? This is
probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
I doubt the voters would regard this as a close race if they had been
able to fully rank all the choices. The 3-choice limitation is
simplistic, and complicates the counting.
Pairwise counting does not result in any exhausted ballots. Unmarked
choices are an indication that the choices are equally disliked. And
multiple candidates being marked at the same preference level is
also no
problem.
In other words, the ballots contain enough information that they
can be
counted in other ways, besides instant-runoff counting. Those
alternate
counting methods could reveal a clearer outcome.
In haste,
Richard Fobes
On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
Curious to hear people’s thoughts on some issues.
- May not elect majority candidate
In SF, we restrict to 3 choices to simplify the process. As the vote
currently stands, 144 votes separate the top two candidates
(<0.1%) and
over 16,000 ballots have been exhausted (all 3 choices eliminated).
About 9% of voters have been removed from the pool. It is very
possible
that the result would have shifted if they had the opportunity to
rank a
4th candidate, and therefore, it is possible that we won’t elect the
person who truly represents the majority. Is this common? This is
probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
- What are your thoughts on London Breed’s response to being
asked if
RCV is fair? She stated “This is the system we are working with.
That’s
a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
with it.”
- insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem in a
progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more fair. It
also felt divisive. If Leno wins, will her supporters feel that
democracy prevailed, or that the election was stolen? She also
presents
herself as a minority candidate and it is my understanding that RCV
gives minority candidates better chances and causes all
candidates to be
more likely to campaign to minority communities. Am I mistaken? Are
there any legitimate arguments that FPTP can be more fair? Thoughts?
Regards,
—Chris
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
list info
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
<mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com>
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
--
Greg Dennis, Ph.D. :: Policy Director
Voter Choice Massachusetts
e :: greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org mailto:greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org
p :: 617.863.0746 tel:617.863.0746
w :: voterchoicema.org http://voterchoicema.org/
:: Follow us on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/voterchoicema and Twitter
https://twitter.com/voterchoicema ::
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
In SF, we restrict to 3 choices to simplify the process. ...
Actually, the city charter (Section 13.102) says:
... The ballot shall allow voters to rank a number of choices in order
of preference equal to the total number of candidates for each office;
provided, however, if the voting system, vote tabulation system or
similar or related equipment used by the City and County cannot
feasibly accommodate choices equal to the total number of candidates
running for each office, then the Director of Elections may limit the
number of choices a voter may rank to no fewer than three....
The city is currently working on a design for new equipment, which will
almost certainly allow more than three choices.
That said, there is nonetheless some truth in Chrisopher's statement.
Those opponents of RCV who claim it is "too complicated" also claim to
believe that limiting the voter to three choices simplifies her task.
The discussion of the effects of truncation in this thread -- including
on strategic voting -- proves these opponents wrong on this point.
--Bob Richard
On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
Curious to hear people’s thoughts on some issues.
-
May not elect majority candidate
In SF, we restrict to 3 choices to simplify the process. As the vote
currently stands, 144 votes separate the top two candidates (<0.1%)
and over 16,000 ballots have been exhausted (all 3 choices
eliminated). About 9% of voters have been removed from the pool. It
is very possible that the result would have shifted if they had the
opportunity to rank a 4th candidate, and therefore, it is possible
that we won’t elect the person who truly represents the majority. Is
this common? This is probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts? -
What are your thoughts on London Breed’s response to being asked if
RCV is fair? She stated “This is the system we are working with.
That’s a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
with it.” - insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have
a Dem in a progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more
fair. It also felt divisive. If Leno wins, will her supporters feel
that democracy prevailed, or that the election was stolen? She also
presents herself as a minority candidate and it is my understanding
that RCV gives minority candidates better chances and causes all
candidates to be more likely to campaign to minority communities. Am
I mistaken? Are there any legitimate arguments that FPTP can be more
fair? Thoughts?
Regards,
—Chris
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are
categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no
data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough
information to be sure of final results.
Actually, all the data you need is available from that page. The "Ballot
Image" file will give you the full cast vote record of every individual
ballot, and the "Master Lookup" is the legend that tells you what each
number means. If you have trouble interpreting the numbers, just ping me!
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 4:36 PM, VoteFair electionmethods@votefair.org
wrote:
On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
https://sfelections.sfgov.org/june-5-2018-election-results-d
etailed-reports
I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are
categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no
data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough
information to be sure of final results.
Converting instant-runoff counts into pairwise counts might be (probably
is?) possible, but I don't have time to do that analysis.
The probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only
case so far.
Yes, circular ambiguity -- in which there is no Condorcet winner -- is
rare when the number of ballots exceeds a few hundred.
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
<rbj@audioimagination.com mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if
someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
"disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice of
choosing the mayor.
Based on a very quick guesstimate it looks like about 30 or so ballots had
this issue. Right?
That's not a big number, but a fair counting method -- such as pairwise
counting -- would not have to discard any ballots.
The bigger number is "under votes" and admittedly pairwise counting cannot
compensate for a voter saying "here is the only acceptable choice" (or two
choices in this case).
It's great that these results are getting analyzed by people who do not
drink the FairVote kool-aid.
In haste,
Richard Fobes
"The VoteFair guy"
On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
https://sfelections.sfgov.org/june-5-2018-election-results-d
etailed-reports
Based on the most recent analysis of these numbers that I saw, Leno was
indeed the Condorcet winner, and if Breed were to beat Leno in the final
round, she would then necessarily be the Condorcet winner. The
probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only case so
far.
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
<rbj@audioimagination.com mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
Richard, a few points:
the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if
someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
"disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice of
choosing the mayor. however, i think the news media made it clear
that the race was really gonna be between Leno, Breed, and Kim, so
these fringe voters might have a chance to insincerely mark either
Leno or Breed as their 3rd choice and betray their *true* third
choice and, in doing so, have an effect in the final round.
ignoring the problem of only 3 ranking levels, it is not possible
that London Breed is the Condorcet Winner (a.k.a. "pairwise
champion"). it might be the case that Mark Leno or Jane Kim is the
Condorcet Winner and if the latter is the case, this is another real
indictment against STV or IRV as a method of tallying RCV. and your
reverse namesake, FairVote, is partially (or mostly) to blame.
i wonder if the City of SF has a file of all of the cast and scanned
ballots and the full ranking for each. if so, and if they release
it to the public, we can investigate if there is a Condorcet Winner
and if that CW is or is not Mark Leno. this would be interesting.
L8r,
r b-j
On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
... She stated “This is the system we are working with. That’s
a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
with it.”
- insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem
in a
progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more
fair. ...
This remark does not imply support for first past the post (FPTP,
a.k.a
plurality counting).
There are other ways to count the preference marks on
"ranked-choice"
ballots. In particular, pairwise counting could be used instead of
instant-runoff counting, and that is fairer than FPTP.
- May not elect majority candidate
...
Is this common? This is
probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
I doubt the voters would regard this as a close race if they had
been
able to fully rank all the choices. The 3-choice limitation is
simplistic, and complicates the counting.
Pairwise counting does not result in any exhausted ballots. Unmarked
choices are an indication that the choices are equally disliked. And
multiple candidates being marked at the same preference level is
also no
problem.
In other words, the ballots contain enough information that they
can be
counted in other ways, besides instant-runoff counting. Those
alternate
counting methods could reveal a clearer outcome.
In haste,
Richard Fobes
On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
Curious to hear people’s thoughts on some issues.
- May not elect majority candidate
In SF, we restrict to 3 choices to simplify the process. As the
vote
currently stands, 144 votes separate the top two candidates
(<0.1%) and
over 16,000 ballots have been exhausted (all 3 choices eliminated).
About 9% of voters have been removed from the pool. It is very
possible
that the result would have shifted if they had the opportunity to
rank a
4th candidate, and therefore, it is possible that we won’t elect
the
person who truly represents the majority. Is this common? This is
probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
- What are your thoughts on London Breed’s response to being
asked if
RCV is fair? She stated “This is the system we are working with.
That’s
a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
with it.”
- insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem
in a
progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more fair.
It
also felt divisive. If Leno wins, will her supporters feel that
democracy prevailed, or that the election was stolen? She also
presents
herself as a minority candidate and it is my understanding that RCV
gives minority candidates better chances and causes all
candidates to be
more likely to campaign to minority communities. Am I mistaken? Are
there any legitimate arguments that FPTP can be more fair?
Thoughts?
list info
list info
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
<mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com>
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
--
Greg Dennis, Ph.D. :: Policy Director
Voter Choice Massachusetts
e :: greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org mailto:greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org
p :: 617.863.0746 tel:617.863.0746
w :: voterchoicema.org http://voterchoicema.org/
:: Follow us on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/voterchoicema and Twitter
https://twitter.com/voterchoicema ::
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
info
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
I processed the latest data (2018-06-09) and posted the results of the SF
Mayor election using a few algorithms:
https://bolson.org/~bolson/2018/SF_Mayor_20180605.html
The Condorcet win is now 97436 to 91740 for Leno over Breed.
The IRV final round is still just 94783 to 94393.
I'm using my software posted at https://github.com/brianolson/voteutil
commands (needs maven installed for compiling Java, and needs Python3):
curl -O
http://www.sfelections.org/results/20180605/data/20180609/20180609_ballotimage.txt
curl -O
http://www.sfelections.org/results/20180605/data/20180609/20180609_masterlookup.txt
(mkdir -p ~/psrc && cd ~/psrc && git clone
https://github.com/brianolson/voteutil.git && cd ~/psrc/voteutil/java &&
mvn package)
python3 ~/psrc/voteutil/python/rcvToNameEq.py -m 20180609_masterlookup.txt
-b 20180609_ballotimage.txt -o 20180609_%s.nameq
java -jar ~/psrc/voteutil/java/target/voteutil-1.0.0.jar --rankings
--full-html --explain -i 20180609_Mayor.nameq >/tmp/a.html
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 9:33 PM, Greg Dennis greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org
wrote:
I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are
categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no
data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough
information to be sure of final results.
Actually, all the data you need is available from that page. The "Ballot
Image" file will give you the full cast vote record of every individual
ballot, and the "Master Lookup" is the legend that tells you what each
number means. If you have trouble interpreting the numbers, just ping me!
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 4:36 PM, VoteFair electionmethods@votefair.org
wrote:
On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
https://sfelections.sfgov.org/june-5-2018-election-results-d
etailed-reports
I quickly looked at the vote data and saw that lots of ballots are
categorized as "Exhausted by Over Votes" and "Under Votes," but there is no
data indicating exactly how those ballots were marked, so we lack enough
information to be sure of final results.
Converting instant-runoff counts into pairwise counts might be (probably
is?) possible, but I don't have time to do that analysis.
The probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only
case so far.
Yes, circular ambiguity -- in which there is no Condorcet winner -- is
rare when the number of ballots exceeds a few hundred.
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
<rbj@audioimagination.com mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if
someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
"disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice of
choosing the mayor.
Based on a very quick guesstimate it looks like about 30 or so ballots
had this issue. Right?
That's not a big number, but a fair counting method -- such as pairwise
counting -- would not have to discard any ballots.
The bigger number is "under votes" and admittedly pairwise counting
cannot compensate for a voter saying "here is the only acceptable choice"
(or two choices in this case).
It's great that these results are getting analyzed by people who do not
drink the FairVote kool-aid.
In haste,
Richard Fobes
"The VoteFair guy"
On 6/9/2018 6:25 AM, Greg Dennis wrote:
San Francisco always make the cast vote record public:
https://sfelections.sfgov.org/june-5-2018-election-results-d
etailed-reports
Based on the most recent analysis of these numbers that I saw, Leno was
indeed the Condorcet winner, and if Breed were to beat Leno in the final
round, she would then necessarily be the Condorcet winner. The
probability of IRV not elected the Condorcet winner appears to be
exceedingly low in practice. We're up to about ~200 IRV elections
conducted nationwide since 2004 and Burlington 2009 is the only case so
far.
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 2:07 AM, robert bristow-johnson
<rbj@audioimagination.com mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:
Richard, a few points:
the limitation to only three levels of ranking is a problem. if
someone ranked all three levels and none of the candidates ranked
were either London Breed nor Mark Leno, that voter was effectively
"disenfranchised" by being unable to weigh in on the final choice of
choosing the mayor. however, i think the news media made it clear
that the race was really gonna be between Leno, Breed, and Kim, so
these fringe voters might have a chance to insincerely mark either
Leno or Breed as their 3rd choice and betray their *true* third
choice and, in doing so, have an effect in the final round.
ignoring the problem of only 3 ranking levels, it is not possible
that London Breed is the Condorcet Winner (a.k.a. "pairwise
champion"). it might be the case that Mark Leno or Jane Kim is the
Condorcet Winner and if the latter is the case, this is another real
indictment against STV or IRV as a method of tallying RCV. and your
reverse namesake, FairVote, is partially (or mostly) to blame.
i wonder if the City of SF has a file of all of the cast and scanned
ballots and the full ranking for each. if so, and if they release
it to the public, we can investigate if there is a Condorcet Winner
and if that CW is or is not Mark Leno. this would be interesting.
L8r,
r b-j
On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
... She stated “This is the system we are working with. That’s
a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
with it.”
- insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem
in a
progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more
fair. ...
This remark does not imply support for first past the post (FPTP,
a.k.a
plurality counting).
There are other ways to count the preference marks on
"ranked-choice"
ballots. In particular, pairwise counting could be used instead of
instant-runoff counting, and that is fairer than FPTP.
- May not elect majority candidate
...
Is this common? This is
probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
I doubt the voters would regard this as a close race if they had
been
able to fully rank all the choices. The 3-choice limitation is
simplistic, and complicates the counting.
Pairwise counting does not result in any exhausted ballots.
Unmarked
choices are an indication that the choices are equally disliked.
And
multiple candidates being marked at the same preference level is
also no
problem.
In other words, the ballots contain enough information that they
can be
counted in other ways, besides instant-runoff counting. Those
alternate
counting methods could reveal a clearer outcome.
In haste,
Richard Fobes
On 6/8/2018 6:24 PM, Christopher Colosi wrote:
Curious to hear people’s thoughts on some issues.
- May not elect majority candidate
In SF, we restrict to 3 choices to simplify the process. As the
vote
currently stands, 144 votes separate the top two candidates
(<0.1%) and
over 16,000 ballots have been exhausted (all 3 choices
eliminated).
About 9% of voters have been removed from the pool. It is very
possible
that the result would have shifted if they had the opportunity to
rank a
4th candidate, and therefore, it is possible that we won’t elect
the
person who truly represents the majority. Is this common? This is
probably an abnormally close race. Thoughts?
- What are your thoughts on London Breed’s response to being
asked if
RCV is fair? She stated “This is the system we are working with.
That’s
a discussion we can have at a later time. For now, we’re stuck
with it.”
- insinuating it is not fair. I was quite bothered to have a Dem
in a
progressive city insinuate that first past the post is more fair.
It
also felt divisive. If Leno wins, will her supporters feel that
democracy prevailed, or that the election was stolen? She also
presents
herself as a minority candidate and it is my understanding that
RCV
gives minority candidates better chances and causes all
candidates to be
more likely to campaign to minority communities. Am I mistaken?
Are
there any legitimate arguments that FPTP can be more fair?
Thoughts?
list info
list info
--
r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com
<mailto:rbj@audioimagination.com>
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for
list info
--
Greg Dennis, Ph.D. :: Policy Director
Voter Choice Massachusetts
e :: greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org <mailto:greg.dennis@voterchoicema.org
p :: 617.863.0746 tel:617.863.0746
w :: voterchoicema.org http://voterchoicema.org/
:: Follow us on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/voterchoicema and Twitter
https://twitter.com/voterchoicema ::
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
info
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list
info
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info