Freakonomics has this story about Instant Runoff Voting, with an emphasis on the Portland, Maine Mayoral election of November 8, 2011. The story shows the ballot, which allows voters to rank as many candidates as they wish. The election has 15 candidates, including two Green Party members (the election is non-partisan).
IRV = THE method to elect Stalin or Hitler clones when the Mush Middle is divided.
34 S–M–H
33 H–M–S
16 M–S–H
16 M–H–S
99
M loses. S beats H 50-49 and claims a *mandate* from Hell to go nuts. Civil WAR II ???
Gee – who has 99 votes in 1st plus 2nd place votes ???
Gee — will the IRV party hack Stalin/Hitler clones be even more EVIL than the gerrymander/plurality monsters since 1776 in one party safe seat gerrymander districts ???
IRV does NOT have EQUAL treatment of ALL 2nd, 3rd, etc. place votes – esp for single person offices.
I’d like the following idea.
– If a candidate doesn’t get a majority of the first round vote, all the second round votes are counted
– If a candidate doesn’t get a majority of the second round vote, all the third round votes are counted
So, a candidate would have to gather either a majority in the first 2 rounds or a plurality in the final round.
Isn’t this particular concept of “instant run-off” being used in Portland, Maine little too extreme – as well as confusing? Why not simply allow all the “2nd choice votes” of all the eliminated candidates to be given to the two-top respective candidates who was their “1st” choice?
Did not Florida (and perhaps a few other states) use back in the early 1900’s such a simple method for their Democratic Primary – to avoid a “run-off? 2nd Primary.
Or, am I missing something?
ALL election methods have problems with 3 or more choices.
See Condorcet [head to head math] on the internet — often needing a tiebreaker.
34 A–B–C
33 B–C–A
32 C–A–B
99
66 A > 33 B
67 B > 32 C
65 C > 34 A
Pending which —
P.R. and App.V.
The ballot should have simple 1 to 15 at the top under CHOICE.
The ballot should have some blank space each 3rd or 4th choice — i.e. columns 1-3 / space / columns 4-6 / space etc.
Some century the MORONS will get it right for Rank/Number voting.
What was the infamous *modicum* of support to get on the ballot ??? Having a warm body ???
To get on the Portland ballot for mayor, each candidate needed at least 300 signatures of registered Portland voters. 15 of the 16 candidates to submit their nomination papers made the ballot.
#3, yes, a little more than 100 years ago, a few southern states used IRV in Democratic primaries.
Other math —
If no majority first choice votes then —
Look at last place votes, if majority then lose.
Shift the votes for losers to the left.
Recheck for 1st place majority.
If no winner, then accumulate last place plus next to last place votes (right to left) until get a majority loser.
Repeat until get a 1st place majority winner.
A nonvote would be deemed a last place vote.
Computer child’s play — pending Condorcet math.
The problem in all this stuff is the divided majority votes — at/near the 50-50 margin.
26 A–B–Z
25 B–A–Z
49 Z
i.e. some of Z voters voting for the lesser of the A/B evils.
So this would be like reverse IRV, Demo Rep?
Let me use your S-M-H example.
34 S–M–H
33 H–M–S
16 M–S–H
16 M–H–S
1st place votes: S,34; H,33; M,32. No majority.
3rd place votes: H,50; S,49. H is eliminated and his 1st place votes go to M, while his second place votes go to M, 34-16 over S.
New 1st place votes: M,65; s,34. M wins!
To help explain how the system works here is an example from a Scottish byelection that took place on Thursday.
http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F39E89BF-C07B-47D4-82E8-EF76C10FC015/0/ElectionSTVspreadsheetWard20InvernessFinal.pdf
# 9 Correct.
However – Condorcet math should be used — with some major public education.
Condorcet noticed that a 3rd choice might beat each of 2 current choices head to head.
i.e. In #1 and #9 —
M beats S 65-34 directly head to head
M beats H 66-33 directly head to head
One obvious tiebreaker is a simple YES or NO on each choice.
I.E. BOTH number votes and YES/NO votes.
Gee — would the extremist loons rave on even more or less ??? — IF they wanted to get elected.
http://www.npr.org/2011/11/07/142080926/ranked-choice-put-to-the-test-in-s-f-mayor-race
Story about the IRV stuff in S.F. — how much *confusion* will happen ???
Demo Rep: ideally, Condorcet should be taught. However, having the voters rank up to 3 candidates already would be a major feat. I don’t know if voters would get more confused with Condorcet or reformed IRV.
Pingback: Freakonomics Story Shows Picture of Portland, Maine Mayoral Ballot for November 8, 2011 Election | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
#13 Need to wait a bit to see what percentage of the New Age voters vote ILLEGALLY in Portland, S.F, etc. and/or do NOT vote for all choices — due to *confusion* or whatever reason.
“#3, yes, a little more than 100 years ago, a few southern states used IRV in Democratic primaries.”
Of course those were WHITE(aka Jim Crow) primaries, so the “progressive” IRV advocates never bring up that part of their history.
Here’s an idea for Portland: change to a parliamentary system (Maine borders on Canada, so the system should not seem so alien and outlandish) and elect the city legislature by open-list PR. Very simple and little chance of mass confusion.
# 16 parliamentary systems = SAME persons having executive and legislative powers = 2/3 tyrants.
After Hitler in 1933-1945 (and about 70 million DEAD), it is INSANE amazing that there are ANY parliamentary regimes in the free world nations.
See the U.K. with its NO written constitution — TOTAL EVIL is possible at ANY time by a meeting of the robot party hacks in the gerrymander House of Commons and the appointed robot hacks in the House of Lords.
# 17 You can normally expect the legislative and executive
branches to be mainly composed of w**res, chancers and rum fellows engaged in an ongoing conspiracy against the public. I’m at least half-convinced that it was Joe McCarthy’s flagrant contempt for these holy “customs” of the DC Gang that brought about his downfall.