The Seattle Post-Intelligencer just posted an op-ed by Richard Anderson-Connolly from tomorrow’s paper: “Instant runoff voting can solve primary problem for counties,” dealing with local IRV proposals and one adopted by Pierce County, WA.
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer just posted an op-ed by Richard Anderson-Connolly from tomorrow’s paper: “Instant runoff voting can solve primary problem for counties,” dealing with local IRV proposals and one adopted by Pierce County, WA.
I like that the author is supporting equalizing ballot access signature requirements with Amendment 3, but Instant Runoff Voting is a flawed reform. See this summary which shows that IRV (and other ranked voting systems) can produce strange results as demonstrated in several recent elections. Strategic voters can increase the chances of their candidate winning by ranking him/her second rather than first, and voters can even cause their favorite to lose by voting their favorite first instead of sitting out the election. Determination of results is complicated and even problematic when more than one district is involved. IRV can be even worse than our current plurality system at times.
Range Voting is a voting system in which voters give all of the candidates grades (recommended range is 0 to 99, but existing voting machines could be used with 0-9 scores) and the highest average score determines the winner (simply add them up and divide by number of votes). There is no incentive to give your favorite candidate a lower score than any other candidate, or not to vote honestly (truly voting your opinion). Scoring is more expressive in that a voter can indicate relative amount of preference of one candidate over another.
The main criticism of Range Voting is that it has a slight bias toward candidates with broad voter support rather than a slim polarizing majority, so it isn’t favored by the most partisan members of the two major parties. It also appears to lead to enhanced scoring totals for minor parties, as many voters seem willing to indicate partial support for them when they seem assured they aren’t penalizing their favorite choice of the two major candidates. Minor parties are at least given a chance to grow with Range Voting (IRV still leads to two-party domination, observed in reality).
Range voting has been determined statistically to be the best overall voting system. It is perfect for primaries where there are many candidates and preferred for general elections with several candidates, in each case selecting the best overall candidate.
I can understand the frustrations with the current plurality voting system, as I was even asked to drop out of my University of Colorado regent race by a current officeholder and another candidate, who feared a spoiler effect. If there is going to be effort toward voting system reform, however, choose the best overall system, Range Voting, not Instant Runoff Voting, another flawed system, even if IRV has the momentum currently. Informed third party activists can unite behind Range Voting, the voting system which can help them the most and produce the best elections results at the same time.
links messed up in posting (doesn’t like HTML)–try these links:
IRV vs. Range Voting Executive Summary:
http://www.rangevoting.org/IrvExec.html
Range Voting, Center for:
http://www.rangevoting.org
My being asked to drop out of my race for fear I would act as a spoiler:
http://www.longmontfyi.com/elections/Elections-story.asp?ID=9943
Actually, the Pierce County proposal hasn’t been adopted yet. It is on the ballot on November 7–one of four IRV/choice voting measures nationwide. The others are in Minneapolis, MN, Oakland, CA and Davis, CA.
The Pierce County proposal is very interesting, and could prove to be an experiment which leads the state in the same direction. Mr. Anderson-Connolly’s piece in the P-I was useful in educating voters about the option.
One point in Anderson-Connolly’s op-ed needs correction, however. The 43rd District does not have a weak party organization (in Washington State terms), but perhaps the strongest one in the state. Anderson-Connolly’s definition of a strong party is apparently one in which a small clique can control nomination and/or election, and make their decision stick. That is not the model on which my district organization, the 43rd Democrats, has built a strong party: ours is the opposite, a party that is strong because of its enormous rate of voter participation in key decisions. The best example of this is the 9,000 Democrats who spent 2-4 hours in 43rd precinct caucuses in 2004, in a district with only about 80,000 registered voters total. This participation has helped change the 43rd from one in which the Democrats never elected a legislator until the 1970’s to one which now produces the biggest margins for Democratic Presidential candidates of any district north of San Francisco.
Any change in electoral systems should be predicated on an accurate understanding of the existing organizations and practices. Not all major party organizations have the same failings. At the same time, not all small parties are internally democratic.
IRV is a very good idea for our country. I wouldn’t support it alone but with a proportional tier so that you have 2 parties that can rotate power and also third parties that only need to do well in the races to get in. Luckily, no system is perfect but IRV has a long stay in the USA ever since the 1900s. If we want to avoid a possible de facto plurality system, I’d require voters to rank at least 2 options.(A NOTA and/or write-in option should be allowed too). This can possibly have Greens and Democrats against Libertarians and Republicans or any other type of electoral alliance that can help the outcome. Hey, the candidates would need at least 50% +1 of the votes to win. I think that having Greens and Libertarians support IRV only is nice but I heard that the Greens have always supported proportional representation. Our best hope, if we can form an alliance that attracts unhappy voters and get to work on what the average American wants, is to reach a type of mixed system. Anybody who’s interested in giving me ideas or wants to talk about any election related topics can just e-mail me at: derekgorman@yahoo.com. I know our country needs a change badly!!