On 7/4/2017 4:43 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote: > ... > The blowup scenario could go like this: > - IRV is used in more and more places > - Voters think it's now possible for a third party to grow > - Third parties grow until they're competitive with the two main parties > - IRV gets confused in an election and elects the wrong candidate > ... Excellent point. This is a good reminder as to why some people in the United States think that instant-runoff voting is a good method. They do not think beyond the two-party system, except to hope that third-party candidates can sometimes win. But when single-mark ballots are gone, the bias in favor of just two main political parties will disappear. It's also related to the issue of "fixing" the U.S. electoral college system. The "fixes" assume that there will be only two dominant presidential candidates. What's really needed in the U.S. is to fix the PRIMARY elections. Those elections need to accommodate four or five or even seven popular candidates, not just two popular candidates. Until primary election methods are reformed, both the Republican and Democratic political parties will continue to be controlled by people with money who hire election-method "experts" who create campaign-donation strategies that take advantage of plurality counting (of single-mark ballots). (Their strategy to elect a Republican president in 2008 by donating money to an African-American in the 2008 Democratic primary election did not work out so well for them.) And yes, either approval voting or pairwise counting (any Condorcet method) would work well in U.S. in primary elections -- because the winner is always from the correct political party. Happy Fourth of July! (U.S. Independence day) Richard Fobes

On 07/01/2017 08:46 AM, Sennet Williams wrote: >> If so, I conditionally apologize. >> I had certainly never heard of the term "RCV" until an anti-IRV SF >> election commissioner suggested that RCV would be a better name and no >> one objected. That was around 1990(?), after the SF measure was passed >> but before it was implemented. The vote redistribution method is >> apparently exactly the same in SF, Oakland and Berkeley, all which were >> voted on as "I.R.V.", but are now usually referred to as RCV. >> >> If the term R.C.V. had actually been used before that election >> commission meeting then the implication is that I.R.V. is merely a type >> of RCV, so I learned something new. Is there any evidence for this claim that RCV was used with any frequency to mean the same thing as IRV? I have only heard them used as synonyms (by IRV supporters) in the past few years. If this is true, there must be plenty of old links in the wayback machine that Sennet can point us all to. When I look at the FairVote web site from 2009, it talks about ranked choice voting *methods*; prior to that, IRV seems to be the name used exclusively. -- Andrew

"* Just FYI, single-winner races are IRV and at-large Park Board and Board of Estimate and Taxation races are STV. RCV is the inclusive name. " Fair Vote Minnesota conducted an awesome campaign to get that reform. I think this is the way forward in the USA. They gor rid of George III but not monarchism, all those autocratic single member posts from the President down, including this group's seeming obsession with single member "winners". Democracy and science are about consensus. There should be more STV than IRV but it is a start. Richard Lung. On 03/07/2017 17:22, Ken B wrote: > On 7/3/2017 12:50 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >> >> > I was thinking of a smaller election, say a mayoral election in >> > Minneapolis (which we'll have in November). If there's a recount, the >> > Election folks will need to have all the ballots, not just precinct >> > totals, at election HQ. And they will because for every election, >> after >> > we transmit the precinct totals downtown, some of us election judges >> > deliver the paper ballots to two collection sites. Later, all of them >> > end up at one site. >> >> okay. but the issue regarding precinct summability is one of >> election transparency and decentralization and diffusion of >> responsibility. by providing, not as a recount but as a routine >> election function, the subtotals for each precinct *at* the precinct >> locations, then the media, the various campaigns, and just any other >> watchdogs can total up the subtotals themselves. if the ballot data >> is carried from the precincts to the central tabulation location via >> a thumbdrive or some physical instrument, there is no double-checking >> in the same sense as if the precincts reported their totals at the >> precinct location to the media and the public. people might wonder >> if something fishy has happened after the precinct is closed and this >> data is opaquely transported from the precinct to the central >> tabulation location by whatever means. >> >> with IRV, you need to either bring a thumb drive or some physical >> instrument (perhaps the voting machine) that has a record of every >> single ballot. it needs that to transfer ballots from one virtual >> pile to another when a candidate is eliminated. the other >> possibility is to have subtotals for every possible variation of how >> a ballot can be marked. but the number of piles there grows very >> large when the number of candidates increases beyond 4 or 5. it >> would just not be as meaningful for third parties to independently >> check and add up those subtotals. >> >> ... >> >> BTW, i grew up in eastern North Dakota and i know a few folks and >> relatives in Mpls/StP. if i had to live in the midwest, Mpls/StP or >> maybe Madison would be where i would want to live. >> > = = = = = > [KB] This is a more complete description off our process in > Minneapolis. After the poll (precinct) closes, we > - transmit electronically the ballot counter's data to Elections HQ. > - print copies of the precinct totals of first choices for every > race and post one in the precinct entrance for anyone to inspect. > - remove the thumb drive with its stored data from the machine and > seal it in its own envelope. > - remove all the ballots from the counter and seal them in boxes. > - complete reports on various activities in the precinct during the > voting day (7 am-8 pm). > > After we've completed all our paper reports and sealed all the other > precinct records, two election judges -- including at least one of the > Head Judge or the Asst. Head Judge -- drive the records (including the > thumb drive) and ballots to one of two locations where HQ staff check > in everything against a checklist of precinct requirements. > > HQ has the electronically-sent precinct ballot images and vote totals > for each race; the ballot images and vote totals on the precinct > ballot counter's thumb drive; and the paper ballots the counter > processed. > > A recount would use the paper ballots. I won't swear to it, but I > believe in our two RCV* city elections there hasn't been a recount. As > I recall, there was a physical count of all paper ballots in 2009 > before the city got upgraded hardware and software for 2013 (although > we're still waiting for software to be certified that'll allow more > choices on the ballots). > - Ken Bearman, Minneapolis MN > > * Just FYI, single-winner races are IRV and at-large Park Board and > Board of Estimate and Taxation races are STV. RCV is the inclusive name. > > > > ---- > Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list > info > -- Richard Lung. http://www.voting.ukscientists.com Democracy Science series 3 free e-books in pdf: https://plus.google.com/106191200795605365085 E-books in epub format: https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/democracyscience

---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Re: [EM] hmmm. Maybe I missed something before SF passed IRV then called it RCV? From: "Kristofer Munsterhjelm" <km_elmet@t-online.de> Date: Tue, July 4, 2017 7:43 pm To: "Sennet Williams" <sennetwilliams@yahoo.com> "election-methods@lists.electorama.com" <election-methods@lists.electorama.com> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The blowup scenario could go like this: > - IRV is used in more and more places > - Voters think it's now possible for a third party to grow > - Third parties grow until they're competitive with the two main parties > - IRV gets confused in an election and elects the wrong candidate > - There's a backlash and IRV is repealed > - Voting reform in general suffers for a long time, because it's > associated with IRV. E.g. in the fashion of "Oh, you want a better > voting method? Like IRV? We all saw how that turned out". thanks for expressing how at least one Burlingtonian (that voted no on the repeal IRV ballot question) feels. > > If the blowup scenario is realistic, then it doesn't matter whether IRV > has momentum. If anything, focusing on just one method is bad, because > if it fails, the backlash will be all that more severe. It would be > better to try a variety of methods: Range in one place, Condorcet > somewhere else, IRV a third place; and see how they do before going > national. i still think Range asks too much from the voters and they're gonna simply saturate their vote for their favorite. �it will be like Plurality scaled by 10. -- r b-j � � � � � � � � �rbj@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

On 07/05/2017 09:52 AM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: > > > ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- > Subject: Re: [EM] hmmm. Maybe I missed something before SF passed IRV > then called it RCV? > From: "Kristofer Munsterhjelm" <km_elmet@t-online.de> > Date: Tue, July 4, 2017 7:43 pm > To: "Sennet Williams" <sennetwilliams@yahoo.com> > "election-methods@lists.electorama.com" > <election-methods@lists.electorama.com> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> >> The blowup scenario could go like this: >> - IRV is used in more and more places >> - Voters think it's now possible for a third party to grow >> - Third parties grow until they're competitive with the two main parties >> - IRV gets confused in an election and elects the wrong candidate >> - There's a backlash and IRV is repealed >> - Voting reform in general suffers for a long time, because it's >> associated with IRV. E.g. in the fashion of "Oh, you want a better >> voting method? Like IRV? We all saw how that turned out". > > thanks for expressing how at least one Burlingtonian (that voted no on > the repeal IRV ballot question) feels. Though I guess the Progressives were already established in Vermont before IRV entered the scene. Is that right? >> If the blowup scenario is realistic, then it doesn't matter whether IRV >> has momentum. If anything, focusing on just one method is bad, because >> if it fails, the backlash will be all that more severe. It would be >> better to try a variety of methods: Range in one place, Condorcet >> somewhere else, IRV a third place; and see how they do before going >> national. > > i still think Range asks too much from the voters and they're gonna > simply saturate their vote for their favorite. it will be like > Plurality scaled by 10. I agree with you. I'm much more in favor of MJ myself. But if Range is used on a small scale and rapidly degrades into Approval, and then the Approval version fails due to the chicken dilemma, then we have concrete evidence of Range and Approval's failure modes. And if it never fails, then all the better, no? The real problem is if Range (or Approval, or IRV, ...) seems to work well at a small scale, and the failure only happens once it's become large enough to affect the dynamics. Like how IRV works well in a two party plus fringe situation, because it's obvious whom to eliminate, but then blows up once the fringe parties are real contenders. Then the backlash would be all the more severe and could hurt general electoral reform. I guess "let's try it out somewhere safe and see if it works" is the lower risk strategy, while "trust us, the mathematics says it's not going to blow up" is the higher risk strategy.