On November 8, the voters of St. Paul, Minnesota, and Portland, Maine, used Instant Runoff Voting for the first time, to elect city officials. St. Paul elected some city council members (from districts), and Portland elected a Mayor. Voters in both cities seemed to have little or no trouble using the new system. See this story about St. Paul, and this story about Portland.
Choice quotes:
St. Paul:
“expected turnout to be at the same level”
“could take up to two weeks to announce a winner”
Portland:
“vote counting took longer than anyone realized”
“The city spent $22,000 more on this election”
Unfortunately, IRV is being promoted as a reform that helps third parties and independents, but it is not, because single winner districts attract egotists and candidate who think one person is better than everyone else.
Multi-winner districts under ranked choice voting, such as those in Cambridge Massachusetts are a much better reform.
If you’d like to read more about multi-winner winner districts, check out my campaign for president with the American Libertarian Party at this link, and please feel free to contact me or join the team if you like what you’re reading.
We’re powered by votes. This weekend I’ll be counting the ballots for the direct democracy planks on the platform eballots, and the Mid-West Super-state Parliament (ss-8) which includes names from Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
If you vote by midnight on 11/11/11 then your ranked eballot will be posted in the forum and factored into the final results. Click on the “Vote Here” tab and follow the directions if you’re interested.
Thanks in advance for considering and taking the time to rank the names. (Need not be a resident of the Mid-West to participate, because we don’t have enough people and we welcome your input).
Best,
–James Ogle
Go Ogle 2012
http://www.usparliament.org/google2012.php
#2, Instant Runoff Voting definitely helps minor parties and independent candidates. The US Supreme Court said in Jenness v Fortson that states may impose ballot access barriers of petitions as high as 5% of the number of registered voters. The Court said states have an interest in doing this “to prevent frustration of the democratic process.” The Court meant by this that “spoilers” are bad. IRV, if in place throughout the United States, would demolish that rationale for restrictive ballot access laws.
IRV = THE method to elect Stalin/Hitler clone extremists when the Middle is divided.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V. — pending Condorcet head to head math.
Democracy = Majority Rule
Now – nonstop ANTI-Democracy minority rule gerrymanders since 4 July 1776 (States) and since 4 Mar 1789 (U.S.A. regime).
The CRISIS is N-O-W — regardless of MORON fixes like IRV, NPV, etc. etc.
Pingback: St. Paul, Minnesota, and Portland, Maine, Use Instant Runoff Voting for First Time | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
Yes Demo Rep, Instant Runoff Voting is the tool of COMMIES and NAZIS.
RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!! WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!
# 6 IRV is the fantasy remedy of delusional utopian math MORONS.
See the usual suspect MORONS in Germany in 1933 being wiped out by the Hitler regime.
Underlying stuff causes stuff to happen quick.
Dec. 1773-July 1776
1859-Apr 1861
etc.
After which the standard MORONS say — gee I had NO idea there was a problem.
Dude, if you have to use Hitler for your argument, you’ve already failed.
#1 St.Paul demonstrated that it is possible to use a 3-column ballot and allow more than 3 choices. I don’t know why they imposed an arbitrary restriction of six (though in this election, there were no more than 5 candidates in any ward, so it didn’t matter).
Only one of 7 wards did not have a majority winner, and will be counted on Monday. There are about 5000 votes, so the delay is probably to allow processing of provisional ballots and the like.
This will be a hand count, and the elections officials indicated it would be quite similar to the recounts that they have had to count in the past few elections (eg Coleman-Franken) and would be broadcast on their public access channel. If this is streamed, you might be able to watch. (8:30 am CST on Monday0.
Interestingly enough, they indicated that they would be able to handle ballots where a voter ranked the candidates by using numerals – which is probably due to state laws regarding interpretation of voter intent. It could be interesting what would happen in San Francisco if there were a legal challenge on this basis.
There was a fairly strong dropoff in preferences, with only 72% as many 2nd preferences as there were 1st preferences (and this might include repeats) in the _most_ contested race.
St.Paul previously used a primary, so there would have been an election in the wards in which there were more than 2 candidates. St. Paul also holds school board elections at the same time, and had they chosen not to, could have had a primary (elections are at large multi-member, but the primary reduces the field to 2xN of the number of candidates), so there is not necessarily an advantage.
#1 Portland did not have a popularly elected mayor before this, and had to hire an outside vendor to count the votes. The cost of upkeep on a mayor probably far exceeds the cost of his election.
The lengthier time was because they had to check the ballots before they were (re)scanned. They may be dependent on the vendor, and the results that are online only include the initial results. Not a transparent process so far – as compared to the elections where the city or county have conducted the elections.
# 8 NO Hitler and Stalin types in U.S.A. politics ??? — waiting to come out of a closet or a hole in the ground when times get rough and tough ???
Think 1860 or 1932 times 10, 20, etc.
Did Hitler have a hypnotic effect in his reptile brain BIG LIE speeches/ravings ???
ANY minorities in the U.S.A. that can be blamed for all of the political-social-economic problems since Adam and Eve — by a Stalin/Hitler type ???
Election systems MATTER.
#3: No, Mr. Winger, IRV doesn’t help third parties. I’ve lost track of the number of examples I (and others) have provided to the contrary.
And IRV still has spoilers, so ballot access restrictions would not be lifted.
I know Demo Rep is the worst debater ever; please ignore him. But his base point, regardless of how poorly he argues it, is correct.
#12, A very good U.S. Supreme Court Justice disagreed with your point that “IRV still has spoilers.” Justice Harlan, in Williams v Rhodes, said that IRV is the answer to those who argue that only two candidates should be permitted on the general election ballot. He didn’t call it IRV, but he described it, in footnote 8. He wrote, “The voter could be given the right to indicate both his first and his second choice”. This was his response to Justice Stewart, who argued Wallace should be kept off the Ohio ballot because letting him on might change the outcome.
Stewart wasn’t persuaded, and in 1971, when Stewart wrote Jenness v Fortson, Stewart again used “spoilers” as his main rationale for upholding the 5% petition, and didn’t mention IRV. He obviously didn’t mention it because he had no response.
I also want to say that supporters of Instant Runoff Voting have consistently also been strong supporters of lenient ballot access, in California (CfER) and in the nation (Fairvote). But I have never seen an opponent of IRV lift a finger to do anything to help in the fight against repressive ballot access laws. The San Francisco Chronicle is a fierce opponent of IRV and also a fierce opponent of fair ballot access. The same law firm that tried to get IRV held unconstitutional in San Francisco is the same law firm that is fighting in favor of “top-two”, the Nielsen Merksamer firm.
#12 How about folks like Sam Adams, Patrick Henry before the DOI debates and the folks debating the DOI in early 1776 ???
How about that BIG troublemaker with his mini-pamphlet – T. Paine in Jan. 1776 ???
See the second paragraph of the DOI — gone over for how many months, weeks, days, hours, minutes and seconds ???
Nonstop gerrymander ROT before, during and after the DOI — going back to the gerrymander formation of the English House of Commons in the late 1200s — a mere 700 plus years ago.
How many IGNORANT folks are on this list ??? — who are brain dead IGNORANT about gerrymander math, 3 choices election math, constitutional law and history, have ANY respect for the SCOTUS robot party hacks in ballot access cases, etc.
Answer – too many to count.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V. — before it is too late.
MAJOR ANTI-Democracy forces are coming together — NOT detected by brain dead IGNORANT folks, of course — until it is too late.
See the top govt MORONS in Europe outside of Germany (esp. in the U.K. and France) in Jan. 1933 – Aug. 1939 regarding Hitler.
#13 Nielsen Merksamer is defending a change in the law that reduced the number of signatures to run for statewide office in California from well over 100,000 to 60; and for district office from over 10,000 to 40. If someone had been participating in elections since when Barry Goldwater was running for president in 1964, it was only in 2010 that they would have had take off their shoes in order to count the TOTAL number of independent congressional candidates in general elections.
Nielsen Merksamer argued against the erroneous interpretation of your Secretary of State as to the meaning of “party preference” which requires so many contradictions that she must have been reading a notebook left by Jerry Brown when he was Secretary of State.
Gautam Dutta on the other hand is trying to derail these revolutionary ballot access reforms.
BTW, why isn’t the Field case being appealed to the California Supreme Court?
#13 By Justice Harlan’s logic, isn’t California violating your 1st Amendment right of political association by entering into a compact with entities that refuse to count votes cast for the candidate you might prefer.
What do you think of Justice Harlan’s other suggestions in that footnote?
Richard, the claim that IRV prevents spoilers and helps third parties is indefensible. There’s a reason that IRV is classified as failing the Favorite Betrayal Criterion. And that would be because IRV fails the Favorite Betrayal Criterion.
Now, IRV does eliminate spoiling when the third-party candidate has very little support. But it becomes dangerous to vote for this third-party candidate once that candidate has more support.
That’s because if the third-party candidate makes it to the last round, then the compromise candidate’s votes are transferred instead. That compromise candidate’s votes are more likely to go to the other major-party candidate than your third-party candidate. So your third party candidate loses.
But had you voted for your compromise candidate, then your compromise would receive the votes transferred from the eliminated third-party candidate. And those votes being transferred to your compromise candidate would beat out the other major-party rival.
So, in using IRV, voters must decide what is more likely:
1. The voters prefer at least one of the major-party candidates to your third-party candidate, OR
2. The day has come where voters prefer your third-party candidate over both major-party candidates.
If you think the day has finally come for your candidate and you’re wrong, then you get the crappy major-party candidate as the winner. But betraying your favorite under IRV at least gets your compromise candidate. And that’s the same frustrating dilemma as Plurality Voting.
I recognize explaining this is complicated. But it’s not our fault IRV has a transfer process that makes explaining its downfalls more complicated. There will be more user-friendly material on this in the future, but right now here’s the available visual material:
http://ajennings.net/irv_video.mov
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKCWNNYOOkw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg3LJLlcj68
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQxlM-P6ONs
So why go through all this with IRV when you know there’s an easy system (Approval Voting) that is completely immune from the spoiler effect? It also has a record in large scale studies in France and Germany of treating third-parties fairly–even when they lose.
Approval Voting treats even losing third-party candidates fairly by giving them an accurate measure of support to grow from. And third parties have to accept that by definition they will lose a majority of the time. So they might as well choose a single-winner system that treats them well when they do lose. And that system is Approval Voting: http://www.electology.org/approval-voting
#17, you are missing my point. Some judges and politicians think that “spoilers” are bad, and that is how they justify keeping all but two candidates off the general election ballot. There is a general consensus that IRV avoids the spoiler problem. The judges and state legislators who determine how severe the ballot access laws believe that IRV solves the problem.
Ergo, if IRV is installed, the judges will be less inclined to uphold restrictive ballot access, and state legislators will be less included to support restrictive ballot access. So the existence of IRV helps the fight against restrictive ballot access.
#17, you are also failing to respond to my other point. I may be wrong, but I am not aware of one Approval Voting activist who has ever done anything to help minor parties or independent candidates with restrictive ballot access laws, or discriminatory debate practices, or discriminatory public funding laws.
On the other hand, virtually every IRV supporter I know is an active worker for justice for minor parties and independent candidates. When Approval Voters say IRV doesn’t help minor parties and independents, I take this to be crocodile tears. Approval voting activists don’t really seem to care one bit about minor parties or independent candidates. By your fruits shall ye be known. If I am wrong, please tell me what any Approval Voting activist has done to help minor parties or independent candidates with the many injustices they face in the United States.
P.R. for legislative elections.
Nonpartisan App.V. for executive / judicial elections.
EQUAL nominating petitions for ALL candidates.
ONE election.
Any questions ???
@Richard
I’ll see if I’m following this. More IRV -> Less judicial & legislative concern over spoilers -> more ballot access -> more 3rd parties being represented. And, within all this, you’re saying IRV advocates love third parties while Approval Voting advocates couldn’t care less. I disagree with all this.
Our judiciary seems to have little sympathy for third parties. For one, our Supreme Court doesn’t care at all. They made that clear in Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party with their hostile language (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11056988192650684715&hl=en&as_sdt=2,23). And what makes you think legislatures are going to go far out of their way to give themselves competition with fairer ballot access?
If ballot access is your big goal, then it would help to get people angry about ballot access laws. But why would people care when they know their candidate won’t win or will get ignored. IRV’s tabulations become complex with many candidates. And the IRV algorithm itself behaves crazily an unacceptable percentage of the time. Most importantly, IRV DOES NOT fix the spoiler problem. It only mitigates the issue with fringe candidates having little support. IRV is not a reason to be excited about your dream candidate being on the ballot. Approval Voting, however, should get people excited.
Voters deserve to be able to vote for third party candidates beyond that initial momentum-gathering stage. At least Approval Voting Advocates think so. Maybe if IRV supporters cared about the healthy competition that third parties bring, then they’d go with Approval Voting. There, you can always vote your honest favorite and normal people have an actual idea of how much support the candidates have.
And let’s say you get what you want. You get your ballot access, and you get your IRV. IRV will continue to betray you. It will continue to be behave nonsensically. It will continue to have confusing tabulation so that people have a hard time seeing the support the candidates have. It will continue to allow third parties to be blamed for spoiling. And it will continue to elect non-centrist candidates. With a single-winner system, Approval Voting is the closest you’re going to get with giving third parties a fair shake.
And this statement: “There is a general consensus that IRV avoids the spoiler problem.” This is absolute absurdity. To believe this statement in the face of the evidence presented is to be completely delusional. Someone within this area must go out of their way to avoid the evidence or lie to themselves to believe this. I really hope that you meant others believe that false statement and not yourself.
Finally, if advocates want to KEEP the two-parties while also negating fringe spoilers, then they should go with IRV. Then the major parties don’t have competition, AND they don’t have to worry about third parties affecting the outcome. And for advocates that want fair competition where third parties can always get the honest votes they deserve without fear of vote splitting, then their position should be with Approval Voting. IRV hurts your cause. The only reason IRV has more use is because it’s been around longer.
*AND they don’t have to worry about third parties affecting the outcome.
Referring to fringe spoilers. IRV obviously allows craziness like nonmonotonicity and spoiling from candidates with more support that still don’t win. So third parties still affect the outcome, but not in productive ways. And those effects are mitigated with small third parties so major parties can get by with ignoring them completely.
IRV3 which is used in San Francisco due to deficiencies of their voting equipment has a spoiler effect. Because voters are prevented from expressing preferences for most candidates, it is similar to plurality elections, and votes cast for minor candidates are simply discarded as “exhausted”.
Because only 3 preferences are allowed, it may give voters the impression that one or two preferences are OK, which increases the likelihood will be discounted.
In the recent mayoral election, only 49% of voters voted for either of the leading two candidates. Only 45% of the remaining voters had expressed a preference for either of the two leading candidates. It would be like having an “instant runoff” but immediately escorting out of the polling place 55% of the other voters, because they failed to guess which candidates would be in the runoff. In a real runoff, these voters would be free to participate, and other voters could reconsider their initial vote.
This is one reason that turnout for the instant runoff was down 47% (almost half) from the conventional runoff in 2003.
It could tactically wise to encourage lots of competing candidates, and encourage plumping, so as to cause votes to be leaked from the system.
All versions of IRV are vulnerable to the spoiler effect when a third party becomes more competitive. It’s not just IRV 3. And this makes it wise for voters not to always rank their honest favorite as first.
Anyone can plainly see IRV’s spoiler effect for themselves:
http://ajennings.net/irv_video.mov
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKCWNNYOOkw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg3LJLlcj68
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQxlM-P6ONs