Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
The Latest on IRV in SF
An inside look at what's happening with IRV in SF. I just did a google seach but came up with nothiing past the Aug 8th Examiner editorial to 'hold off on IRV,' so the coverage on this was minimal, as to be expected. At least court cases go down in history with a record in print, and it can be looked back on about the absurdity of the political games trying to keep the will of the voters crushed.
Just passing along the updates on IRV from Steven Hill. I edited off the first part because he talks about specifics of the court case and I wasn't sure he'd want it posted on here.
From: Steven Hill, Center for Voting and Democracy
Dear Friends of IRV in San Francisco,
Below is the statement I read at the news conference last Monday
morning after we filed our suit. We had media there from KGO Ch. 7,
Channel 11, KQED, KPFA, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Examiner,
Bay City News, Bay Guardian, SF Weekly, Sing Tao Daily, a Chinese radio
station, and more. My statement was designed to answer the critics who
have asked: "Why are you being so unreasonable? Why not wait until next
year?"
Statement from Steven Hill at the news conference following the filing
of a lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco for failure to
implement instant runoff voting
"Good morning, and thank you to members of the media and the public for
attending.
"Some have asked, Why are we filing this lawsuit today against the City
and County of San Francisco? Why not do the "reasonable" thing,
and
wait until next year for IRV implementation? The answer is very simple.
The Department of Elections and the Elections Commission have had 17
months to implement instant runoff voting. Not six months, not twelve
months, but 17 months. It's been nearly a year and a half since
Proposition A was passed on March 5, 2002. We think that's enough time,
more than enough time. Furthermore, we still think IRV is doable this
November. We do not believe the Department of Elections has explored
all possible options. We believe the Department of Elections has made
several key mistakes, endangering the success of implementation.
Looking at the long list of excuses employed for not using IRV this
year, and mindful of the frequent election schedule over the next year,
including elections and potential elections in October, November,
December, March, and June which will provide more excuses to not
implement, and wary of the powerful political forces arrayed against IRV
implementation, we are not confident that we will see an IRV election
next year.
"So we are going to court to ensure that the law -- and the will of the
voters -- is upheld, and that instant runoff voting is
implemented on
schedule. My organization, the Center for Voting and Democracy, is proud
to be joined by organizations and individuals as co-plaintiffs that
represent a true cross-section of San Francisco, including the Congress
of California Seniors, Chinese Progressive Association, San Francisco
Labor Council, AFL-CIO, and the California Public Interest Research
Group (CalPIRG), and individuals Gwenn Craig, Enrique Asis, Tracy
Baxter, and Arthur Chang.
"Here's a quick recap of why we think the city should implement instant
runoff voting this year.
1. As a matter of law, December runoff elections now are illegal. The
charter amendment implementing instant runoff voting wiped out the old
part of the charter that allowed for December runoff elections. If the
City is allowed to run a December election anyway, without charter
authorization or without a judge's order, what does that say about the
power of laws and the "will of the people"? The voice of democracy
will
have suffered irreparable harm, a diminution of popular sovereignty.
2. If the City is allowed to run a December election without charter
authorization or without a judge's order, then why can't the City move
the November election back to December, and use IRV? Moving the date of
the election seems as doable to us - and better fulfills the law - than
running an illegal December runoff.
3. The gubernatorial recall election is going to put the Department of
Elections under even greater stress than usual. If it has to hold a
December runoff, that means three elections in 10 weeks and four
elections in five months. Taking one election off that calendar will
save around $4 million and allow them to focus on conducting the other
elections better.
4. All the benefits of IRV -- that caused voters to strongly pass it in
March 2002 - still hold true today. It will save taxpayers millions that
currently are wasted paying for an unnecessary second election. It is a
clear form of campaign finance reform, since candidates do not have to
raise money for a sec
ond election (also, see the excellent San Francisco
Ethics Commission resolution at http://www.fairvote.org/irv, which states
unequivocally that IRV is needed to stanch the fourfold increase in
independent expenditures that occurs during the December runoff). It
maximizes turnout in the decisive November election, particularly in
minority precincts that see disproportionate declines in voter turnout
during low-turnout December runoffs. It will more likely elect winners
who have support from the majority, AND accomplish this in one election.
It will create decrease hack-attack politics and polarizing campaigns,
since winning candidates will have incentives to build coalitions and
try and appeal to the supporters of other candidate for their number 2
ranking.
5. If IRV is abandoned this year, there is absolutely no guarantee that
it will be used next year. Director of Elections John Arntz won't give
it a thought until after next March's primary, and given what happened
this year, that makes us very nervous. We also expect opponents --
particularly the consultants and the powerful political forces who don't
like IRV for self-interested reasons -- will attempt to repeal it.
6. The City has more time to await certification of its upgraded voting
equipment than it is alleging. The equipment has been upgraded, and its
vendor, ES&S, is awaiting certification at the Secretary of State'
office. In our lawsuit we will ask the judge to determine when is the
last possible moment when the plug can be pulled on awaiting
certification of the upgraded voting machines. The recent federal ruling
on the recall bolsters our contention that the Department doesn't have
to make that decision until the third week in September. Our attorney
says that federal decision is loaded with points useful to our case,
including the stipulation by the Secretary of State and registrars of
two large counties (Los Angeles and San Diego) not to print, mail or
distribute any ballots or instructions on the recall voting procedures
until August 20 -- for an O
ct. 7 election! This arms us with a powerful
example of how rapidly elections materials and procedures can be altered
up to a point reasonably close to an election. The analogous date for a
November 4th election would be the third week in September. And that
would give the ES&S application time to be certified by the Secretary of
State.
7. But the Department of Elections does not need to wait for the
Secretary of State to implement instant runoff voting. We have another
ready alternative. It is called a "hand count," conducted on paper
ballots. Britain, Ireland and Australia have run IRV hand-counts for
many decades. Let me be clear: I am NOT talking about the "John Arntz
method," the so-called "partial hand count" that was projected
to cost
$2.3 million and could not guarantee election results in 28 days, and
consequently was denied certification by the Secretary of State. I'm
talking about a low-tech solution, but a real solution. A firm with
years of experience in conducting IRV hand-counts has forwarded to the
Department of Elections a sound proposal. This firm would run a hand
count of IRV ballots and produce election results in TWO days - not 28
-- and for little more than $250,000. That's a tenth of the cost of the
"John Arntz method," and a fraction of the $4 million cost of a second
citywide election in December. Moreover, because this method does not
involve the use of voting equipment, it does not require certification
by the Secretary of State, since the Secretary's certification process
only applies to equipment and machines.
8. Voters in other places again and again have demonstrated that simply
numbering candidates is a very easy task. Ranked ballots have resulted
in extremely low rates of ballot spoilage, attesting to the ease of use
for voters. In fact, paper ballot systems often have lower voter error
rates than voting machines. When Ann Arbor, Michigan used instant runoff
voting on traditional paper ballots in 1975, just a few months after its
adoption by voters in November 1974, voter
error declined sharply, from
2.3% to 1.2%. New York's local school board elections using ranked
ballots not only have produced more representation for minority
communities than any other election in New York, but there has been a
lower rate of voter error for those elections than in the presidential
election. Internationally, instant runoff voting is used to elect the
president of Ireland and a similar ranked choice system is used to elect
the parliament of Malta. In both elections, a paper ranked ballot is
used, and the rate of invalid ballots is typically less than 1.0%, well
below the national error rate of more than 2% in the American
presidential election in 2000.
9. We have a strong legal case. A low-tech solution for a hand count
using paper ballots does not require certification by the Secretary of
State, and there's plenty of time to implement it by November 4. IRV is
the law, December runoffs are not. Charter cities have broad discretion
under California law and the California Constitution to change their
charter and decide local election matters for themselves. And an IRV
election in November will make the Department of Elections' job EASIER,
not more difficult, since they can outsource the ballot-counting under a
pure hand count plan to the other firm, and they will no longer have to
start planning for a December election in September. They can enjoy
their holidays for a change.
"In short, instant runoff voting for this November is doable, legal, and
desirable. It upholds the will of the voters, which desires to get rid
of December elections and use instant runoff voting to elect local
offices. We have a top-notch lawyer to make our arguments in court.
Lowell Finley is an experienced election law attorney, and now, I turn
you over to him to answer any legal questions that you might have."
Steven Hill
Center for Voting and Democracy
San Francisco Bay Guardian
Barely alive: Only the courts can save IRV now that Arntz has declared it dead and the commission prepares to pull the trigger.
By Alex Posorske and Steven T. Jones
August 13, 2003
When city Department of Elections director John Arntz declared instant-runoff voting dead for this year, IRV opponents and the city's daily newspapers were quick to sign off on the death certificate. Anti-IRV forces on the city's Elections Commission then attempted to validate Arntz's decision during a rancorous Aug. 6 meeting, but the body deadlocked with a 3-3 vote.
While IRV - also known as ranked-choice voting - barely clings to life, there are still maneuvers taking place that could revive it for the fall ballot, as voters mandated when they approved Measure A last year. The Center for Voting and Democracy on Aug. 11 filed a lawsuit to compel IRV's implementation. San Francisco Superior Court Judge James L. Warren will hear the case Aug. 20, just hours before the Elections Commission is set to reconsider the matter.
CVD's Steven Hill said he expects the court to decide that afternoon whether to order the city to implement IRV. The lawsuit argues that Arntz had no legal basis to declare IRV dead since two vote-counting methods are still on the table: an electronic method that could be certified by the state by mid-September and the hand-counting system of a British firm that the city has not officially considered.
Hill said the firm's hand-counting system could give election results within two days, and the method would not be dependent on Secretary of State Kevin Shelley's approval since it would not be considered a "voting system" that needs state approval, although City Attorney Dennis Hererra has opined that even hand counts need state approval.
The most vocal opponents of IRV have been centrist Democrats aligned with Mayor Willie Brown and mayoral hopeful Gavin Newsom, who could benefit from a divided progressive field. That political reasoning got even stronger when progressive Sup. Matt Gonzalez jumped into the mayor's race Aug. 8.
While confident of his chances even without IRV, Gonzalez told the Bay Guardian he's bothered by foot-dragging in the Secretary of State's Office: "I don't think they've taken the steps they could to make this happen."
Joe Taggard of city elections vendor Election Systems and Software told the Bay Guardian on Aug. 6 that he had just sent the state the final elements of his company's application, but a Shelley spokesperson told us Aug. 11 (finally returning several calls just before press time), "We have not received any vendor application," which Taggard called "ridiculous."
So IRV's fate now rests with the courts and with the Elections Commission, whose Aug. 6 deadlock (with one commissioner, Robert Kenealey, who isn't considered a supporter of IRV, absent) did not qualify as a ringing endorsement of Arntz. At least two committee members were upset by the new stand of the previously neutral Arntz, and one, Richard Shadoian, lit into Arntz at the meeting, questioning whether he had the power to declare IRV dead.
"We are going to tell you what to do," Shadoian angrily said to Arnst. "I think you've gone way over your rights to do something like this."
But commission president Alix Rosenthal, who has been publicly doubtful about the wisdom of implementing IRV this year, favors letting Arntz's decision stand.
The Elections Commission meets Aug. 20, 7 p.m., City Hall, Room 400, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, S.F.
http://www.sfbg.com/37/46/news_irv.html
S.F., crucible for democracy
By Krist Novoselic
August 13, 2003
I FIRST BECAME interested in electoral reform with my work on music issues in Washington state. One of the goals of that work was to mobilize a constituency. And through all of my efforts I've found that the problem with people not participating in our democracy comes down to one thing: our electoral system discourages people.
http://www.sfbg.com/37/46/x_oped.html
From: Steven Hill, Center for Voting and Democracy
Dear Friends of IRV in San Francisco,
Below is the statement I read at the news conference last Monday
morning after we filed our suit. We had media there from KGO Ch. 7,
Channel 11, KQED, KPFA, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Examiner,
Bay City News, Bay Guardian, SF Weekly, Sing Tao Daily, a Chinese radio
station, and more. My statement was designed to answer the critics who
have asked: "Why are you being so unreasonable? Why not wait until next
year?"
Statement from Steven Hill at the news conference following the filing
of a lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco for failure to
implement instant runoff voting
"Good morning, and thank you to members of the media and the public for
attending.
"Some have asked, Why are we filing this lawsuit today against the City
and County of San Francisco? Why not do the "reasonable" thing,
and
wait until next year for IRV implementation? The answer is very simple.
The Department of Elections and the Elections Commission have had 17
months to implement instant runoff voting. Not six months, not twelve
months, but 17 months. It's been nearly a year and a half since
Proposition A was passed on March 5, 2002. We think that's enough time,
more than enough time. Furthermore, we still think IRV is doable this
November. We do not believe the Department of Elections has explored
all possible options. We believe the Department of Elections has made
several key mistakes, endangering the success of implementation.
Looking at the long list of excuses employed for not using IRV this
year, and mindful of the frequent election schedule over the next year,
including elections and potential elections in October, November,
December, March, and June which will provide more excuses to not
implement, and wary of the powerful political forces arrayed against IRV
implementation, we are not confident that we will see an IRV election
next year.
"So we are going to court to ensure that the law -- and the will of the
voters -- is upheld, and that instant runoff voting is
implemented on
schedule. My organization, the Center for Voting and Democracy, is proud
to be joined by organizations and individuals as co-plaintiffs that
represent a true cross-section of San Francisco, including the Congress
of California Seniors, Chinese Progressive Association, San Francisco
Labor Council, AFL-CIO, and the California Public Interest Research
Group (CalPIRG), and individuals Gwenn Craig, Enrique Asis, Tracy
Baxter, and Arthur Chang.
"Here's a quick recap of why we think the city should implement instant
runoff voting this year.
1. As a matter of law, December runoff elections now are illegal. The
charter amendment implementing instant runoff voting wiped out the old
part of the charter that allowed for December runoff elections. If the
City is allowed to run a December election anyway, without charter
authorization or without a judge's order, what does that say about the
power of laws and the "will of the people"? The voice of democracy
will
have suffered irreparable harm, a diminution of popular sovereignty.
2. If the City is allowed to run a December election without charter
authorization or without a judge's order, then why can't the City move
the November election back to December, and use IRV? Moving the date of
the election seems as doable to us - and better fulfills the law - than
running an illegal December runoff.
3. The gubernatorial recall election is going to put the Department of
Elections under even greater stress than usual. If it has to hold a
December runoff, that means three elections in 10 weeks and four
elections in five months. Taking one election off that calendar will
save around $4 million and allow them to focus on conducting the other
elections better.
4. All the benefits of IRV -- that caused voters to strongly pass it in
March 2002 - still hold true today. It will save taxpayers millions that
currently are wasted paying for an unnecessary second election. It is a
clear form of campaign finance reform, since candidates do not have to
raise money for a sec
ond election (also, see the excellent San Francisco
Ethics Commission resolution at http://www.fairvote.org/irv, which states
unequivocally that IRV is needed to stanch the fourfold increase in
independent expenditures that occurs during the December runoff). It
maximizes turnout in the decisive November election, particularly in
minority precincts that see disproportionate declines in voter turnout
during low-turnout December runoffs. It will more likely elect winners
who have support from the majority, AND accomplish this in one election.
It will create decrease hack-attack politics and polarizing campaigns,
since winning candidates will have incentives to build coalitions and
try and appeal to the supporters of other candidate for their number 2
ranking.
5. If IRV is abandoned this year, there is absolutely no guarantee that
it will be used next year. Director of Elections John Arntz won't give
it a thought until after next March's primary, and given what happened
this year, that makes us very nervous. We also expect opponents --
particularly the consultants and the powerful political forces who don't
like IRV for self-interested reasons -- will attempt to repeal it.
6. The City has more time to await certification of its upgraded voting
equipment than it is alleging. The equipment has been upgraded, and its
vendor, ES&S, is awaiting certification at the Secretary of State'
office. In our lawsuit we will ask the judge to determine when is the
last possible moment when the plug can be pulled on awaiting
certification of the upgraded voting machines. The recent federal ruling
on the recall bolsters our contention that the Department doesn't have
to make that decision until the third week in September. Our attorney
says that federal decision is loaded with points useful to our case,
including the stipulation by the Secretary of State and registrars of
two large counties (Los Angeles and San Diego) not to print, mail or
distribute any ballots or instructions on the recall voting procedures
until August 20 -- for an O
ct. 7 election! This arms us with a powerful
example of how rapidly elections materials and procedures can be altered
up to a point reasonably close to an election. The analogous date for a
November 4th election would be the third week in September. And that
would give the ES&S application time to be certified by the Secretary of
State.
7. But the Department of Elections does not need to wait for the
Secretary of State to implement instant runoff voting. We have another
ready alternative. It is called a "hand count," conducted on paper
ballots. Britain, Ireland and Australia have run IRV hand-counts for
many decades. Let me be clear: I am NOT talking about the "John Arntz
method," the so-called "partial hand count" that was projected
to cost
$2.3 million and could not guarantee election results in 28 days, and
consequently was denied certification by the Secretary of State. I'm
talking about a low-tech solution, but a real solution. A firm with
years of experience in conducting IRV hand-counts has forwarded to the
Department of Elections a sound proposal. This firm would run a hand
count of IRV ballots and produce election results in TWO days - not 28
-- and for little more than $250,000. That's a tenth of the cost of the
"John Arntz method," and a fraction of the $4 million cost of a second
citywide election in December. Moreover, because this method does not
involve the use of voting equipment, it does not require certification
by the Secretary of State, since the Secretary's certification process
only applies to equipment and machines.
8. Voters in other places again and again have demonstrated that simply
numbering candidates is a very easy task. Ranked ballots have resulted
in extremely low rates of ballot spoilage, attesting to the ease of use
for voters. In fact, paper ballot systems often have lower voter error
rates than voting machines. When Ann Arbor, Michigan used instant runoff
voting on traditional paper ballots in 1975, just a few months after its
adoption by voters in November 1974, voter
error declined sharply, from
2.3% to 1.2%. New York's local school board elections using ranked
ballots not only have produced more representation for minority
communities than any other election in New York, but there has been a
lower rate of voter error for those elections than in the presidential
election. Internationally, instant runoff voting is used to elect the
president of Ireland and a similar ranked choice system is used to elect
the parliament of Malta. In both elections, a paper ranked ballot is
used, and the rate of invalid ballots is typically less than 1.0%, well
below the national error rate of more than 2% in the American
presidential election in 2000.
9. We have a strong legal case. A low-tech solution for a hand count
using paper ballots does not require certification by the Secretary of
State, and there's plenty of time to implement it by November 4. IRV is
the law, December runoffs are not. Charter cities have broad discretion
under California law and the California Constitution to change their
charter and decide local election matters for themselves. And an IRV
election in November will make the Department of Elections' job EASIER,
not more difficult, since they can outsource the ballot-counting under a
pure hand count plan to the other firm, and they will no longer have to
start planning for a December election in September. They can enjoy
their holidays for a change.
"In short, instant runoff voting for this November is doable, legal, and
desirable. It upholds the will of the voters, which desires to get rid
of December elections and use instant runoff voting to elect local
offices. We have a top-notch lawyer to make our arguments in court.
Lowell Finley is an experienced election law attorney, and now, I turn
you over to him to answer any legal questions that you might have."
Steven Hill
Center for Voting and Democracy
San Francisco Bay Guardian
Barely alive: Only the courts can save IRV now that Arntz has declared it dead and the commission prepares to pull the trigger.
By Alex Posorske and Steven T. Jones
August 13, 2003
When city Department of Elections director John Arntz declared instant-runoff voting dead for this year, IRV opponents and the city's daily newspapers were quick to sign off on the death certificate. Anti-IRV forces on the city's Elections Commission then attempted to validate Arntz's decision during a rancorous Aug. 6 meeting, but the body deadlocked with a 3-3 vote.
While IRV - also known as ranked-choice voting - barely clings to life, there are still maneuvers taking place that could revive it for the fall ballot, as voters mandated when they approved Measure A last year. The Center for Voting and Democracy on Aug. 11 filed a lawsuit to compel IRV's implementation. San Francisco Superior Court Judge James L. Warren will hear the case Aug. 20, just hours before the Elections Commission is set to reconsider the matter.
CVD's Steven Hill said he expects the court to decide that afternoon whether to order the city to implement IRV. The lawsuit argues that Arntz had no legal basis to declare IRV dead since two vote-counting methods are still on the table: an electronic method that could be certified by the state by mid-September and the hand-counting system of a British firm that the city has not officially considered.
Hill said the firm's hand-counting system could give election results within two days, and the method would not be dependent on Secretary of State Kevin Shelley's approval since it would not be considered a "voting system" that needs state approval, although City Attorney Dennis Hererra has opined that even hand counts need state approval.
The most vocal opponents of IRV have been centrist Democrats aligned with Mayor Willie Brown and mayoral hopeful Gavin Newsom, who could benefit from a divided progressive field. That political reasoning got even stronger when progressive Sup. Matt Gonzalez jumped into the mayor's race Aug. 8.
While confident of his chances even without IRV, Gonzalez told the Bay Guardian he's bothered by foot-dragging in the Secretary of State's Office: "I don't think they've taken the steps they could to make this happen."
Joe Taggard of city elections vendor Election Systems and Software told the Bay Guardian on Aug. 6 that he had just sent the state the final elements of his company's application, but a Shelley spokesperson told us Aug. 11 (finally returning several calls just before press time), "We have not received any vendor application," which Taggard called "ridiculous."
So IRV's fate now rests with the courts and with the Elections Commission, whose Aug. 6 deadlock (with one commissioner, Robert Kenealey, who isn't considered a supporter of IRV, absent) did not qualify as a ringing endorsement of Arntz. At least two committee members were upset by the new stand of the previously neutral Arntz, and one, Richard Shadoian, lit into Arntz at the meeting, questioning whether he had the power to declare IRV dead.
"We are going to tell you what to do," Shadoian angrily said to Arnst. "I think you've gone way over your rights to do something like this."
But commission president Alix Rosenthal, who has been publicly doubtful about the wisdom of implementing IRV this year, favors letting Arntz's decision stand.
The Elections Commission meets Aug. 20, 7 p.m., City Hall, Room 400, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, S.F.
http://www.sfbg.com/37/46/news_irv.html
S.F., crucible for democracy
By Krist Novoselic
August 13, 2003
I FIRST BECAME interested in electoral reform with my work on music issues in Washington state. One of the goals of that work was to mobilize a constituency. And through all of my efforts I've found that the problem with people not participating in our democracy comes down to one thing: our electoral system discourages people.
http://www.sfbg.com/37/46/x_oped.html
For more information:
http://www.fairvote.org/sf/index.html
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
IRV would be different.
But if you imagine that it's a panacea, that it will........
1) Do away with the "lesser of evils" decision
2) Allow a "condorcet" candidate to win (if there is one)
3) Behave in an intuitively reasonable manner in reponse to political preference shifts
You are wrong. I could easily give you preference ditributions (and preference shifts in the third case) to violate all three. This is not specifically a problem with IRV but affects all other possible "solutions" to the problem of voting between multiple alternatives. Those of you who are Mathematicaly inclined could look up proofs by Kennth Arrow.
a condorcet candidate --- one of a set of candidates who would win (majority) if matched one on one against each of the other candidates. There may be no condorcet candidate in the set and cannot be more than one.
But if you imagine that it's a panacea, that it will........
1) Do away with the "lesser of evils" decision
2) Allow a "condorcet" candidate to win (if there is one)
3) Behave in an intuitively reasonable manner in reponse to political preference shifts
You are wrong. I could easily give you preference ditributions (and preference shifts in the third case) to violate all three. This is not specifically a problem with IRV but affects all other possible "solutions" to the problem of voting between multiple alternatives. Those of you who are Mathematicaly inclined could look up proofs by Kennth Arrow.
a condorcet candidate --- one of a set of candidates who would win (majority) if matched one on one against each of the other candidates. There may be no condorcet candidate in the set and cannot be more than one.
"IRV would be different.
But if you imagine that it's a panacea"
No one said it was a panacea. It brings us tiny steps closer to 'democracy' by making it more likely that the winner has to have a majority.
The real issue here isn't how perfect or imperfect IRV is, but the fact that even this tiny move to try to improve things is met with blatant breaking of laws and trashing of the will of the voters. At this point it is clear that voting is virtually meaningless, since it's controlled so well by the two evils, the corporate media hypnosis machine, the fradulent Diebold scam, etc.
Why vote at all?
Instead of attacking IRV (or at least ALONG with it), why aren't you asking why the city can overrride the voter's will?
But if you imagine that it's a panacea"
No one said it was a panacea. It brings us tiny steps closer to 'democracy' by making it more likely that the winner has to have a majority.
The real issue here isn't how perfect or imperfect IRV is, but the fact that even this tiny move to try to improve things is met with blatant breaking of laws and trashing of the will of the voters. At this point it is clear that voting is virtually meaningless, since it's controlled so well by the two evils, the corporate media hypnosis machine, the fradulent Diebold scam, etc.
Why vote at all?
Instead of attacking IRV (or at least ALONG with it), why aren't you asking why the city can overrride the voter's will?
Gee, didn't Care Not Cash pass? What about the "will of the voters"? The hypocracy reeks.
Yes, we need to have a system that puts checks in place when a measure passed by the voters cannot economically be put into place, or has shown that it cannot operate under state laws, etc.
Take a look at the reasons that Care Not Cash was not implemented IN ITS ENTIRETY, but only partially. Then post them, so you aren't just spreading nonsense.
Care Not Cash would have been implemented if it wasn't just based on a pack of lies to get Gavin into office.
IRV can be used and votes counted in all of two days. The system is ready to go. The state is going ahead with an unprecdented recall campaign that will have HALF the number of polling places open, a ballot of over 100 candidates, will take an unknown amount of time to count, and NOW it has been shown that a recount would be physically impossible, since there's no paper trail in 4 counties in the state.
Explain why the standards are entirely different for these two elections, when one involves millions - and is reckless - and the other involves thousands - and has been developed over a period of over a year.
IRV is economically viable and feasible and is designed to save the city money. Care Not Cash was a pack of lies.
Take a look at the reasons that Care Not Cash was not implemented IN ITS ENTIRETY, but only partially. Then post them, so you aren't just spreading nonsense.
Care Not Cash would have been implemented if it wasn't just based on a pack of lies to get Gavin into office.
IRV can be used and votes counted in all of two days. The system is ready to go. The state is going ahead with an unprecdented recall campaign that will have HALF the number of polling places open, a ballot of over 100 candidates, will take an unknown amount of time to count, and NOW it has been shown that a recount would be physically impossible, since there's no paper trail in 4 counties in the state.
Explain why the standards are entirely different for these two elections, when one involves millions - and is reckless - and the other involves thousands - and has been developed over a period of over a year.
IRV is economically viable and feasible and is designed to save the city money. Care Not Cash was a pack of lies.
THAT is one thing which IRV does NOT do.
Not unless you call some dicatator "elected by an overwhelming majority" just because a majority of voters at gunpoint put a an "x" beside his name.
Under IRV rules, in order to vote FOR any candidate, the voter has to consent to potentially have his or her vote counted as FOR some candidate to which he or she is utterly opposed -- just perhaps not as much as he or she is opposed to some other candidate. All the IRV does is allow the victor to CLAIM support of a majority, which in most cases would be ficititious.
If the goal is to elect a candidate by a majority IF SUCH A CANDIDATE EXISTS (a candidate who would get a majority were the races all one-on-one -- a "condorcet" candidate) then there are better protocols..
Will folks bear with me for a long comment? I think you need to see some examples with numbers so you can see that things can get very bad with IRV (just like with all the alternatives).
Suppose we have a three way race between the fascists, the centrists, and the socialists. You can assume that the fascists' 2nd choice is the centrist, the socialists' 2nd choice the centrist, and the centrists split down the middle (half giving their forced second choice to the fascists, half to the socialists).
Let's say the preference s are:
fascist 39 centrist 31 socialist 30
Fine you say, IRV works like a charm. The centrist candidate wins 61-39
NOW -- suppose the socialists run a great campaign resulting in the preferences of the population to shift leftward. So the 1st preferences are now
fascist 35 centrist 32 socialist 33
The fascist wins 51-49 (that's such a surprising result you'll want to check it for yourself)
Consider two things. That means that some voting socialist faced a "lesser of evils" decision because voting their true preference allowed the fascist victory (they could have prevented this by voting centrist). Also imagine that there might not have been any real shift in preferences but an organized effort on the part of the fascists (assume that in this society pre election polls are very acurate) -- in other words, they could "steal" the election by assigning some of their number to vote socialist.
Not unless you call some dicatator "elected by an overwhelming majority" just because a majority of voters at gunpoint put a an "x" beside his name.
Under IRV rules, in order to vote FOR any candidate, the voter has to consent to potentially have his or her vote counted as FOR some candidate to which he or she is utterly opposed -- just perhaps not as much as he or she is opposed to some other candidate. All the IRV does is allow the victor to CLAIM support of a majority, which in most cases would be ficititious.
If the goal is to elect a candidate by a majority IF SUCH A CANDIDATE EXISTS (a candidate who would get a majority were the races all one-on-one -- a "condorcet" candidate) then there are better protocols..
Will folks bear with me for a long comment? I think you need to see some examples with numbers so you can see that things can get very bad with IRV (just like with all the alternatives).
Suppose we have a three way race between the fascists, the centrists, and the socialists. You can assume that the fascists' 2nd choice is the centrist, the socialists' 2nd choice the centrist, and the centrists split down the middle (half giving their forced second choice to the fascists, half to the socialists).
Let's say the preference s are:
fascist 39 centrist 31 socialist 30
Fine you say, IRV works like a charm. The centrist candidate wins 61-39
NOW -- suppose the socialists run a great campaign resulting in the preferences of the population to shift leftward. So the 1st preferences are now
fascist 35 centrist 32 socialist 33
The fascist wins 51-49 (that's such a surprising result you'll want to check it for yourself)
Consider two things. That means that some voting socialist faced a "lesser of evils" decision because voting their true preference allowed the fascist victory (they could have prevented this by voting centrist). Also imagine that there might not have been any real shift in preferences but an organized effort on the part of the fascists (assume that in this society pre election polls are very acurate) -- in other words, they could "steal" the election by assigning some of their number to vote socialist.
"Under IRV rules, in order to vote FOR any candidate, the voter has to consent to potentially have his or her vote counted as FOR some candidate to which he or she is utterly opposed"
What? You aren't making any sense. It's a simple rank ordering system. It's like if someone asked you which 3 NASCAR drivers you like best, and you chose them in order - 1, 2, 3. BFD.
"-- just perhaps not as much as he or she is opposed to some other candidate. All the IRV does is allow the victor to CLAIM support of a majority, which in most cases would be ficititious."
I'm sorry that you want to see more into the process than it actually is. There is a simple Q & A at the site - http://www.fairvotemn.org/resources/qanda/qanda.htm - since you're having a hard time understanding.
And given that only 17% of the eligible voters in the US 'elected' Bushmoron, we need to work on improvements. IRV is an improvement.
What? You aren't making any sense. It's a simple rank ordering system. It's like if someone asked you which 3 NASCAR drivers you like best, and you chose them in order - 1, 2, 3. BFD.
"-- just perhaps not as much as he or she is opposed to some other candidate. All the IRV does is allow the victor to CLAIM support of a majority, which in most cases would be ficititious."
I'm sorry that you want to see more into the process than it actually is. There is a simple Q & A at the site - http://www.fairvotemn.org/resources/qanda/qanda.htm - since you're having a hard time understanding.
And given that only 17% of the eligible voters in the US 'elected' Bushmoron, we need to work on improvements. IRV is an improvement.
http://fairvote.org/irv/faq.htm
Mike, you don't *have* to rank if you don't want to. You can pick just one person and leave it at that.
"Q - Isn’t this too complex for the voter?
No. All the voter has to do is rank one or more candidates. It’s like renting a video or picking an ice cream: What video (or flavor) do you want? That’s your first choice. If they don’t have that video (or flavor), what would you like? That’s your second choice. If they don’t have that, what’s your third pick? That’s all there is to it. It’s as easy as 1-2-3."
So Mike, if you *only* like vanilla, you just stop after one flavor.
"Q - Doesn’t this give extra votes to supporters of defeated candidates?
No. In each round, every voter’s ballot counts for exactly one candidate. In this respect, it’s just like a two-round runoff election. You vote for your favorite candidate in the first round. If your candidate advances to the second round, you keep supporting that candidate. If not, you get to pick among the remaining candidates. In IRV candidates gets eliminated one at a time, and each time, all voters get to select among the remaining candidates. At each step of the ballot counting, every voter has exactly one vote for a continuing candidate. That’s why the Courts have upheld the constitutionality of IRV.
q - Does IRV eliminate "spoilers" and vote-splitting? Yes. In multiple-candidate races, like-minded constituencies such as Latinos, liberals, conservatives, etc. can split their vote among their own competing candidates, allowing a candidate with less overall support to prevail. IRV allows those voters to rank all of their candidates and watch as votes transfer to their candidate with the most support. In partisan races, IRV prevents the possibility of a third party candidate "spoiling" the race by taking enough votes from one major candidate to elect the other."
Mike, you don't *have* to rank if you don't want to. You can pick just one person and leave it at that.
"Q - Isn’t this too complex for the voter?
No. All the voter has to do is rank one or more candidates. It’s like renting a video or picking an ice cream: What video (or flavor) do you want? That’s your first choice. If they don’t have that video (or flavor), what would you like? That’s your second choice. If they don’t have that, what’s your third pick? That’s all there is to it. It’s as easy as 1-2-3."
So Mike, if you *only* like vanilla, you just stop after one flavor.
"Q - Doesn’t this give extra votes to supporters of defeated candidates?
No. In each round, every voter’s ballot counts for exactly one candidate. In this respect, it’s just like a two-round runoff election. You vote for your favorite candidate in the first round. If your candidate advances to the second round, you keep supporting that candidate. If not, you get to pick among the remaining candidates. In IRV candidates gets eliminated one at a time, and each time, all voters get to select among the remaining candidates. At each step of the ballot counting, every voter has exactly one vote for a continuing candidate. That’s why the Courts have upheld the constitutionality of IRV.
q - Does IRV eliminate "spoilers" and vote-splitting? Yes. In multiple-candidate races, like-minded constituencies such as Latinos, liberals, conservatives, etc. can split their vote among their own competing candidates, allowing a candidate with less overall support to prevail. IRV allows those voters to rank all of their candidates and watch as votes transfer to their candidate with the most support. In partisan races, IRV prevents the possibility of a third party candidate "spoiling" the race by taking enough votes from one major candidate to elect the other."
Look Fred, I am not being critical of IRV in the sense you think. I don't necessarily have a "better" solution to the problem and I'm not going to waste my time looking for one (it's provable that there is no real solution).
But you didn't even comment at all on the example I provided, one carefully selected so that issues about "remote" preferences didn't exist (just 2nd choice involved).
The reality is that IRV works very nicely with some sorts of preference distributions and terribly with others. It changes where the problems occur (as opposed to eliminating problems). It's all very well and good to give people examples of what IRV does well (two mostly identical parties, the perenniel curse of the left). But what you need to do as well is consider the situations where it does badly.
So take another look at my example and explain how THAT sort of behavior is acceptable. We normally would like our system to be "continuous" in the sense that getting more votes means getting closer to victory (even if you don't win this time) because a system lacking that property makes gradual political change over time difficult if not impossible.
But you didn't even comment at all on the example I provided, one carefully selected so that issues about "remote" preferences didn't exist (just 2nd choice involved).
The reality is that IRV works very nicely with some sorts of preference distributions and terribly with others. It changes where the problems occur (as opposed to eliminating problems). It's all very well and good to give people examples of what IRV does well (two mostly identical parties, the perenniel curse of the left). But what you need to do as well is consider the situations where it does badly.
So take another look at my example and explain how THAT sort of behavior is acceptable. We normally would like our system to be "continuous" in the sense that getting more votes means getting closer to victory (even if you don't win this time) because a system lacking that property makes gradual political change over time difficult if not impossible.
I may be wrong, but I believe that this is another possible outcome. If you really hate the centrists - like I hate Dean, or Newsom - you would *never* put them down as a second choice. So you wouldn't be contributing to any centrist win. If you vote for the lesser of two evils than that's what you get. If you don't, then you don't. IRV doesn't radicalize things that far.
Total of voters = 38 - 6 left, 6 right, 16 centrist varieties of left and right-ishness.
rank order of choices
Leftist voter - 6
left 1, center 0, right 0
centrist voter (left) - 4
left 1, center 2, right 0
centrist sheeple voter (center left) - 4
left 2, center 1, right 3
centrist sheeple voter (center right) - 4
left 3, center 1, right 2
centrist voter (right) - 4
left 0, center 2, right 1
Right voter - 6
left 0, center 0, right 1
Check my numbers here . . . So in the first round (choice 1), the right gets 10 votes, the left gets 10 votes, and the center gets 8. The center is now out and the left and right can duke it out in the next round.
If you made the numbers exactly the same, with all of them 4's, then it just brings the whole thing closer, but does not guarentee or bias toward any centrist victory.
"In each round, every voter’s ballot counts for exactly one candidate. In this respect, it’s just like a two-round runoff election. You vote for your favorite candidate in the first round. If your candidate advances to the second round, you keep supporting that candidate. If not, you get to pick among the remaining candidates."
Some choose not to pick an evil. You were assuming they all would pick a centrist.
"In IRV candidates gets eliminated one at a time,"
In the above scenario, the centrist is out in the first round.
"and each time, all voters get to select among the remaining candidates. At each step of the ballot counting, every voter has exactly one vote for a continuing candidate. That’s why the Courts have upheld the constitutionality of IRV."
Total of voters = 38 - 6 left, 6 right, 16 centrist varieties of left and right-ishness.
rank order of choices
Leftist voter - 6
left 1, center 0, right 0
centrist voter (left) - 4
left 1, center 2, right 0
centrist sheeple voter (center left) - 4
left 2, center 1, right 3
centrist sheeple voter (center right) - 4
left 3, center 1, right 2
centrist voter (right) - 4
left 0, center 2, right 1
Right voter - 6
left 0, center 0, right 1
Check my numbers here . . . So in the first round (choice 1), the right gets 10 votes, the left gets 10 votes, and the center gets 8. The center is now out and the left and right can duke it out in the next round.
If you made the numbers exactly the same, with all of them 4's, then it just brings the whole thing closer, but does not guarentee or bias toward any centrist victory.
"In each round, every voter’s ballot counts for exactly one candidate. In this respect, it’s just like a two-round runoff election. You vote for your favorite candidate in the first round. If your candidate advances to the second round, you keep supporting that candidate. If not, you get to pick among the remaining candidates."
Some choose not to pick an evil. You were assuming they all would pick a centrist.
"In IRV candidates gets eliminated one at a time,"
In the above scenario, the centrist is out in the first round.
"and each time, all voters get to select among the remaining candidates. At each step of the ballot counting, every voter has exactly one vote for a continuing candidate. That’s why the Courts have upheld the constitutionality of IRV."
Look, I'm sorry Fred, sorry that you are unable to take an honest look. IRV is an improvement in some situations (distribution of preferences) and is worse with others. The reason IRV looks so good to many of us is that CURRENTLY we are in a situation where the distribution of preferences makes IRV look good. BUT (and this is a very big but) the reason we have that sort of distribution is precisely because of "first past the post" election. As soon as we made the switch to IRV that would change and the sorts of distributions where IRV looks bad come into existence.
For some reason you think it good for "the left and the right to duke it out" in a society where neither the left nor right candidate could win ANY "one on one" matchup (are "anti-condorcet" candidates?). THAT'S STUPID. The whole point of elections is to settle matters with votes rather than fists and the outcome of should respect the people's collective preferences, not some idera of "the good outcome". A system in which the winner of elections couldn't beat ANY of the other candidates is one where most folks would reach for their guns.
All I'm asking here is for folks to LEARN about all the alternatives, what each is good for and when it's a bad solution. Because there WILL be situations (possible distributions of voter preference) where any solution will be bad. If you don't believe me, get a Mathematically inclined friend to explain the proofs done by Kenneth Arrow et al.
I mean seriously, I was trying to give a SIMPLE example demonstrating the problem. Showing that a not unlikely distribution of preferences could lead to those problems. By no means am I saying that ALL distirubutions of preferences lead to problems so your changing my assumption of where the 2nd preferences would be makes no sense whatever.
BUT --- if you insist, if you want more stringent considerations as to where 2nd (and subsequent choices) must go such that they only go to "close" parties and then drop out, I bet I can STILL construct a suitable "bad case" example -- I'd simply need more than 3 parties.
For some reason you think it good for "the left and the right to duke it out" in a society where neither the left nor right candidate could win ANY "one on one" matchup (are "anti-condorcet" candidates?). THAT'S STUPID. The whole point of elections is to settle matters with votes rather than fists and the outcome of should respect the people's collective preferences, not some idera of "the good outcome". A system in which the winner of elections couldn't beat ANY of the other candidates is one where most folks would reach for their guns.
All I'm asking here is for folks to LEARN about all the alternatives, what each is good for and when it's a bad solution. Because there WILL be situations (possible distributions of voter preference) where any solution will be bad. If you don't believe me, get a Mathematically inclined friend to explain the proofs done by Kenneth Arrow et al.
I mean seriously, I was trying to give a SIMPLE example demonstrating the problem. Showing that a not unlikely distribution of preferences could lead to those problems. By no means am I saying that ALL distirubutions of preferences lead to problems so your changing my assumption of where the 2nd preferences would be makes no sense whatever.
BUT --- if you insist, if you want more stringent considerations as to where 2nd (and subsequent choices) must go such that they only go to "close" parties and then drop out, I bet I can STILL construct a suitable "bad case" example -- I'd simply need more than 3 parties.
The benefit of this system is that there is no more 'spoiler' effect. I can vote for Matt for mayor and then also Tom and Angela, whom I think could also do a good job. No one ever forces me to vote for Newsom. And if I don't like Tom or Angela, I don't vote for them.
People don't need to get any guns out, Mike. No one is forcing them to choose someone they thing would do a bad job.
If someone offered you three ice creams and two of them were flavors you didn't like (and most likely would make you throw up), would you eat those just because they were put in front of you? No.
Election outcomes are mathmatically maximized by the numbers of candidates, voter preferences, etc. So yes, almost any imaginable outcome is possible. That happens to work for both IRV and non-IRV. Just like genes. Lot's of possibilities. But the likely reality is another story, and assuming that everyone will throw their votes to centrist candidates may or may not be correct, depending on all the variables involved. So there's no point to trying to prove that one or another outcome is possible - they all are possible. The question is, what's more democratic? Being able to vote for just Matt? Or also Tom and Angela? If it's more important to me that Newsom lose, then I give some to everyone. If its more important to me that Matt win, then I don't give any to anyone else.
Think about it. We have a ballot of over 100 people and you only get to choose one. Imagine if you could have chosen three, and rank ordered them. Would you have chosen Bustamante first? Most people wouldn't, from that list, but are going to choose him to make sure Arnold doesn't get in, and he seems to have the best chance, now that the mainstream press has told us who to vote for.
But this is the last I'm going on about it. I've explained as much as I know and I don't want to become a voting systems expert to try to prove a point. If you have a point that IRV makes it more likely for bad scenarios to happen, then prove it statistically, without just making reference to a book that I don't have time to read.
As it is, we've got one bad bad scenario after another. Winner takes all with 17%, then proceeds to open the doors to planes flying in to towers by telling US intelligence to stop investigating the Saudis, by giving stand-down orders to jets headed to intercept . . . etc., etc.
People don't need to get any guns out, Mike. No one is forcing them to choose someone they thing would do a bad job.
If someone offered you three ice creams and two of them were flavors you didn't like (and most likely would make you throw up), would you eat those just because they were put in front of you? No.
Election outcomes are mathmatically maximized by the numbers of candidates, voter preferences, etc. So yes, almost any imaginable outcome is possible. That happens to work for both IRV and non-IRV. Just like genes. Lot's of possibilities. But the likely reality is another story, and assuming that everyone will throw their votes to centrist candidates may or may not be correct, depending on all the variables involved. So there's no point to trying to prove that one or another outcome is possible - they all are possible. The question is, what's more democratic? Being able to vote for just Matt? Or also Tom and Angela? If it's more important to me that Newsom lose, then I give some to everyone. If its more important to me that Matt win, then I don't give any to anyone else.
Think about it. We have a ballot of over 100 people and you only get to choose one. Imagine if you could have chosen three, and rank ordered them. Would you have chosen Bustamante first? Most people wouldn't, from that list, but are going to choose him to make sure Arnold doesn't get in, and he seems to have the best chance, now that the mainstream press has told us who to vote for.
But this is the last I'm going on about it. I've explained as much as I know and I don't want to become a voting systems expert to try to prove a point. If you have a point that IRV makes it more likely for bad scenarios to happen, then prove it statistically, without just making reference to a book that I don't have time to read.
As it is, we've got one bad bad scenario after another. Winner takes all with 17%, then proceeds to open the doors to planes flying in to towers by telling US intelligence to stop investigating the Saudis, by giving stand-down orders to jets headed to intercept . . . etc., etc.
There isn't a "more democratic" solution. Just different solutions. Each one "fixes" some problems and causes others.
LOOK -- I am NOT trying to tell folks that IRV is a BAD solution or that we shouldn't switch to IRV instead of our present "first past the post". Just trying to help folks see that IRV is not immune to "problems" (undemocratic behavior) and that we need to realize that NO solution exists that is going to be good in all situations.
IRV will allow small parties to come into existence and grow. As indicated in my example, problems may arise if and when any of these new parties approaches enough size to be in contention (more or less the reverse situation compared to "first past the post" which makes it hard for new parties to form and grow but if they manage that, does not bar the path to victory).
LOOK -- I am NOT trying to tell folks that IRV is a BAD solution or that we shouldn't switch to IRV instead of our present "first past the post". Just trying to help folks see that IRV is not immune to "problems" (undemocratic behavior) and that we need to realize that NO solution exists that is going to be good in all situations.
IRV will allow small parties to come into existence and grow. As indicated in my example, problems may arise if and when any of these new parties approaches enough size to be in contention (more or less the reverse situation compared to "first past the post" which makes it hard for new parties to form and grow but if they manage that, does not bar the path to victory).
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$180.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network