This column by Benjamin Lukoff suggests that Washington voters, when faced with the restrictive choices on the November ballot caused by the recently revived “Top-Two” Primary system, may now be attracted to abolishing the primary in favor of Instant-Runoff Voting in November. Thanks to Steve Rankin for the link.
Major defects of the Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) Method, 30 May 2007
Times are ROUGH and TOUGH — like 1860 or 1932. The *middle* is very divided.
34 H W S
33 S W H
16 W H S
16 W S H
99
Place Votes Table
1 2 3
H 34 16 49 99
S 33 16 50 99
W 32 67 0 99
99 99 99
With IRV, W loses. H beats S 50-49.
Head to head (Condorcet method) —
W beats H 65-34
W beats S 66-33
W WINS.
IF the first 2 place votes are *YES* votes (as in Approval Voting), then —
H 50
S 49
W 99
W WINS
IF the Bucklin Method is used (add place votes to get a majority), then adding the place 1 and place 2 votes —
H 50
S 49
W 99
W WINS
H Hitler, S Stalin, W George Washington (American General in the 1775-1781 American Revolution and the first U.S. President)
IRV is super-dangerous [for single offices especially] since it ignores most of the data in a place votes table — regardless of the New Age mindless math MORONS hyping IRV in various places — especially for executive / judicial offices.
IRV WILL nominate / elect HITLER / STALIN TYPE extremists —- who will claim a mighty IRV majority *mandate* for their EVIL stuff — while defeating compromise candidates — especially for offices like President, Governor, mayor, etc.
———
ALL voting methods have problems with 3 or more choices. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system
Example – divided majority
26 AB
25 BA
49 Z
—-
Thus again —
P.R. for legislative body elections.
Approval Voting for executive/judicial offices.
NO party hack caucuses, primaries and conventions are needed.
Despite his tendency to harangue everyone else as a MORON, Demo Rep has some holes in his understanding of voter behavior.
The Grange and other supporters of the top-two system argue that in a two-party system with primary elections, “extreme” candidates will get elected over “moderates,” even in “moderate” districts.
Demo Rep’s analysis of IRV is based on the same assumptions: that voters’ preferences are arrayed on a linear left-right axis on the basis of issue positions, and that they will vote for the candidates who are closest to them on that axis.
But under the two-party system with primaries, where are all these “extreme” elected officials? There are disproportionately few of them, because in partisan primaries, people vote strategically. Primary voters usually choose candidates with more moderate views than their own, especially in “moderate” districts, in order to increase the chance that someone from their party will be elected in the general election.
Under IRV, I expect we would see a similar dynamic. In the highly dubious case of a three-way race between Hitler, Stalin, and Washington, where the pre-election polls are tight, many people whose political views more closely resemble Stalin’s will switch over and give their first-choice votes to Washington in order to prevent the election of Hitler, and vice-versa.
No election system eliminates strategic voting. Anyone who thinks IRV is perfect is mistaken. But Demo Rep’s horror scenarios are mistaken as well.
(Plus, if Hitler and Stalin are each getting about a third of the vote, you need a whole lot more than a better election system.)
Correction: I mistakenly presumed a gender for Demo Rep in my first sentence.
Louisiana’s “top two” produced the infamous Edwin Edwards-David Duke gubernatorial runoff in 1991. The candidates endorsed by the national Republicans and the state Republicans finished third and fourth, respectively.
The 1995 gubernatorial runoff featured a white conservative Republican and a black liberal Democrat. Now-U. S. Sen. Mary Landrieu finished third.
Neither the ’91 runoff nor the ’95 runoff was a competitive race, and it’s highly unlikely that the second-place finisher in either year could have won a party primary.
Demo Rep doesn’t have a gender?
The reality is that in extreme times the *middle* will be even smaller — sample (perhaps 2008) –
44 H W S
43 S W H
6 W H S
6 W S H
99
NEVER any shortage of Stalin – Hitler party hack extremists coming out of their rat holes under political rocks.
See the political train wreck in Iraq.
Approval Voting NOW — i.e. voting YES or NO on candidates (as with ballot questions) — regardless of pre-school folks in sandboxes worried about gender stuff — versus things like the circa $$$ 12 TRILLION in Fed / State / local govt debts due to the nonstop ANTI-Democracy gerrymander minority rule regimes in the U.S.A. since 4 July 1776.
“The reality is that in extreme times the *middle* will be even smaller — sample (perhaps 2008) –
44 H W S
43 S W H
6 W H S
6 W S H”
If 87% of the American people want either a Commie or a Nazi, it’s unlikely that they will defer to the other 13%, regardless of what election system is used.
Mr. Yager 6
What percentage in the middle is high enough ???
32 in 1 above not good enough.
13 in 5 above not good enough.
IRV WILL create leftwing / rightwing *mandate* monsters — even worse than the gerrymander party hack monsters in the Congress and in all 50 State legislatures — with the corresponding *mandate* monster Prezs and Governors.
Which is why IRV is SUPER defective and why Approval Voting will likely choose a middle compromise.
How many Stalin and Hitler clones will be chosen in the WA State top 2 primary in Aug 2008 (despite lots of independent candidates and voters) ??? Stay tuned.
How about a super-extreme —-
49 H W S
48 S W H
1 W H S
1 W S H
99
Anybody recall Prez Nov. 2000 and Prez Nov. 2004 ???
How many New Age leftwing / rightwing powermad party hack EVIL MORONS want to have a Civil W-A-R II ??? — to kill perhaps 250 plus million Americans ???
About 620,000 killed in 1861-1865 – a *high* percentage of the younger men back then (with low tech weapons and very bad medical care).
Steve: I was responding to Demo Rep’s criticism of IRV, in conjunction with the Grange’s similar criticism of party primaries. I was not responding to any criticisms of “top-two.”
But I generally think it is not the purpose of election system design to avoid social conflict by biasing the results toward the most “moderate” or “compromise” candidate.
So while I think top-two is a lousy system for many, many reasons, I don’t think the discussion should really be about which system is more likely to lead to the election of “extremists.”
P.S. My mistake re: gender was presuming one in particular.
IRV would work great in local elections. Instead of having a taxpayer primary for city council candidates, candidates could campaign until November with their message, saving taxpayer dollars. One election – one ballot.
Mr. Prindle 2 wrote —
The Grange and other supporters of the top-two system argue that in a two-party system with primary elections, “extreme†candidates will get elected over “moderates,†even in “moderate†districts.
—-
Sorry – Both the New Age Donkey and Elephant parties are full of extremist leftwing / rightwing party hack candidates.
ALL districts are rigged gerrymander districts — with only a SMALL percentage of *competitive* gerrymander districts.
Fanatic extremists get elected in MOST districts.
Remedy – P.R.
Party Seats = Party Votes x Total Seats / Total Votes
So ALL the voters can see the extremists in action — trying to get votes from *moderate* voters.