Comments on: Green Activisit in Montana pushes for IRV http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/26/green-activisit-in-montana-pushes-for-irv/ Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:34:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: paxil http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/26/green-activisit-in-montana-pushes-for-irv/#comment-197922 Thu, 31 May 2007 23:55:06 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/26/green-activisit-in-montana-pushes-for-irv/#comment-197922 in Germany and then in the United States in Germany and then in the United States

]]> by: Carl http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/26/green-activisit-in-montana-pushes-for-irv/#comment-101831 Sun, 28 Jan 2007 16:54:17 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/26/green-activisit-in-montana-pushes-for-irv/#comment-101831 Proportional representation gave Hitler power. No thanks. There are advantages to district based elections: representatives closer to the people, fewer whack jobs in the legislature, etc. That said, using plurality votes to determine the winner stinks. Under such a system the biggest faction wins, vs. the person who best represents the entire district. Note how plurality voting produces wild oscillations in senators. Range voting is familiar to everyone -- outside of the political context. It's how a wide range of Olympic events are judged (gymnastics, diving, boxing, etc.). It is also how many other judging type events are tallied. Finally, it is how class valedictorian is generally chosen. (Letter grades constitute range votes when translated into GPA.) Thus, range voting has proven stability in those domains where it has been used. It also has a proven record of avoiding the lesser of two evils dilemma. With the exception of boxing, the aforementioned events usually involve far more than two contestants. The main objection to using range voting for elections historically has been the extra math. Instead of one checkbox per voter per contest, you have N numbers per voter per contest, where N is the number of candidates. With hand-counted ballots, this is a lot of extra work. With computer scanned paper ballots, the extra effort is trivial! Proportional representation gave Hitler power. No thanks. There are advantages to district based elections: representatives closer to the people, fewer whack jobs in the legislature, etc.

That said, using plurality votes to determine the winner stinks. Under such a system the biggest faction wins, vs. the person who best represents the entire district. Note how plurality voting produces wild oscillations in senators.

Range voting is familiar to everyone—outside of the political context. It’s how a wide range of Olympic events are judged (gymnastics, diving, boxing, etc.). It is also how many other judging type events are tallied. Finally, it is how class valedictorian is generally chosen. (Letter grades constitute range votes when translated into GPA.)

Thus, range voting has proven stability in those domains where it has been used. It also has a proven record of avoiding the lesser of two evils dilemma. With the exception of boxing, the aforementioned events usually involve far more than two contestants.

The main objection to using range voting for elections historically has been the extra math. Instead of one checkbox per voter per contest, you have N numbers per voter per contest, where N is the number of candidates. With hand-counted ballots, this is a lot of extra work.

With computer scanned paper ballots, the extra effort is trivial!

]]> by: Derek http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/26/green-activisit-in-montana-pushes-for-irv/#comment-101529 Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:58:00 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/26/green-activisit-in-montana-pushes-for-irv/#comment-101529 I think proposing IRV alone is a bad idea because it could favor either the Republicans or Democrats heavier than with our FPTP system. However, I think we should all look at a more realistic proposal: a mixed system. Maybe not a MMP like in Germany but like the one in Scotland and Wales. IRV would be good for the district tier but we could have parties field a list of 2-3 candidates per district instead of having a list. I like the idea of using federal regions to allocate at-large seats. We could either have 4 large regions or 9 medium regions; each state would be part of a "super-district" and they'd also be either 1 "super-district" or many "super-districts" wthin the state as well. We need to do something to challenge those who think multi-member districts are unconstitutional because multi-member districts can balance gender, racial and political groups if used well. I don't think that representation for women and minorities reflects their real strength because of this FPTP system. I would favor the use of a 1 vote mixed system where your 1st choice is also your party vote. However, all the votes for the winner in each candidate should be either completely transferred to voters' 2nd choices or have a partial transfer where, say, a Democrat won with 45% of the 1st choices and you'd have the Democrats keep 20.25% (45% of 45%) of the votes while the other 24.75% are transferred to voters' 2nd choices or vice-versa. Of course all the 1st choices the other candidates received will count and you'd have that party's total. Any ideas? Thanks. I think proposing IRV alone is a bad idea because it could favor either the Republicans or Democrats heavier than with our FPTP system. However, I think we should all look at a more realistic proposal: a mixed system. Maybe not a MMP like in Germany but like the one in Scotland and Wales. IRV would be good for the district tier but we could have parties field a list of 2-3 candidates per district instead of having a list. I like the idea of using federal regions to allocate at-large seats. We could either have 4 large regions or 9 medium regions; each state would be part of a “super-district” and they’d also be either 1 “super-district” or many “super-districts” wthin the state as well. We need to do something to challenge those who think multi-member districts are unconstitutional because multi-member districts can balance gender, racial and political groups if used well. I don’t think that representation for women and minorities reflects their real strength because of this FPTP system. I would favor the use of a 1 vote mixed system where your 1st choice is also your party vote. However, all the votes for the winner in each candidate should be either completely transferred to voters’ 2nd choices or have a partial transfer where, say, a Democrat won with 45% of the 1st choices and you’d have the Democrats keep 20.25% (45% of 45%) of the votes while the other 24.75% are transferred to voters’ 2nd choices or vice-versa. Of course all the 1st choices the other candidates received will count and you’d have that party’s total. Any ideas? Thanks.

]]> by: Devin Ray Freeman http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/26/green-activisit-in-montana-pushes-for-irv/#comment-100947 Sat, 27 Jan 2007 03:26:41 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/26/green-activisit-in-montana-pushes-for-irv/#comment-100947 or check where my case is stated at http://www.reformthelp.org/issues/voting/runoff.php or check where my case is stated at
http://www.reformthelp.org/issues/voting/runoff.php

]]> by: RWR http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/26/green-activisit-in-montana-pushes-for-irv/#comment-100883 Sat, 27 Jan 2007 01:16:40 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/26/green-activisit-in-montana-pushes-for-irv/#comment-100883 "The Kth number in the tuple is a "score" for candidate K." Much simpler than IRV! Actually, I'm completely undecided on whether or not the voting system should be changed, and if so, to what. Thanks for the links. “The Kth number in the tuple is a “score” for candidate K.”

Much simpler than IRV!

Actually, I’m completely undecided on whether or not the voting system should be changed, and if so, to what. Thanks for the links.

]]> by: Wes P http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/26/green-activisit-in-montana-pushes-for-irv/#comment-100878 Sat, 27 Jan 2007 01:09:53 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/26/green-activisit-in-montana-pushes-for-irv/#comment-100878 If you think 2-party domination is a bad thing and would like to see a greater diversity of parties and more voter choice, then why would you want IRV (in which, with strategically-exaggerating voters, 3rd parties have no chance, and which in Australia, Malta, and Ireland still led to 2-party domination) when you could have Range Voting? See <a href="http://www.rangevoting.org/rangeVirv.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.rangevoting.org/rangeVirv.html</a> If you think 2-party domination is a bad thing and would like to see a greater diversity of parties and more voter choice, then why would you want IRV (in which, with strategically-exaggerating voters, 3rd parties have no chance, and which in Australia, Malta, and Ireland still led to 2-party domination) when you could have Range Voting? See http://www.rangevoting.org/rangeVirv.html

]]> by: Otto Kerner http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/26/green-activisit-in-montana-pushes-for-irv/#comment-100877 Sat, 27 Jan 2007 01:04:06 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/26/green-activisit-in-montana-pushes-for-irv/#comment-100877 The main thing in IRV's favour is it gets people used to alternative voting systems. The real deal is proportional representation. Maybe people will be ready to accept that some day. The main thing in IRV’s favour is

it gets people used to alternative voting systems. The real deal is proportional representation. Maybe people will be ready to accept that some day.

]]> by: NewFederalist http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/26/green-activisit-in-montana-pushes-for-irv/#comment-100787 Fri, 26 Jan 2007 22:13:36 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/26/green-activisit-in-montana-pushes-for-irv/#comment-100787 Matt, please check out http://www.reformthelp.org//issues/voting/range.php Matt, please check out http://www.reformthelp.org//issues/voting/range.php

]]> by: Matt Sterba http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/26/green-activisit-in-montana-pushes-for-irv/#comment-100762 Fri, 26 Jan 2007 21:23:11 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/26/green-activisit-in-montana-pushes-for-irv/#comment-100762 Devin - Please state your case against IRV. It seems like it would be very beneficial to third parties. http://www.chrisgates.net/irv/ Devin –
Please state your case against IRV.
It seems like it would be very beneficial to third parties.

http://www.chrisgates.net/irv/

]]> by: NewFederalist http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/26/green-activisit-in-montana-pushes-for-irv/#comment-100761 Fri, 26 Jan 2007 21:19:09 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/26/green-activisit-in-montana-pushes-for-irv/#comment-100761 This is a real "be careful what you wish for" situation. There are many BETTER and EASIER to understand alternative voting methods. I just hope the Greens figure it out quickly. This is a real “be careful what you wish for” situation. There are many BETTER and EASIER to understand alternative voting methods. I just hope the Greens figure it out quickly.

]]> by: Devin Ray Freeman http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/26/green-activisit-in-montana-pushes-for-irv/#comment-100705 Fri, 26 Jan 2007 19:34:33 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2007/01/26/green-activisit-in-montana-pushes-for-irv/#comment-100705 IRV wins the award for WORST voting method. That most Greens persist in supporting the worst known voting method, instant runoff voting, is baffling. But I am confident that the Green Party, comprising as it does otherwise rational people, will one day roundly reject that most wretched of all voting methods, instant runoff. IRV wins the award for WORST voting method.

That most Greens persist in supporting the worst known voting method, instant runoff voting, is baffling. But I am confident that the Green Party, comprising as it does otherwise rational people, will one day roundly reject that most wretched of all voting methods, instant runoff.

]]>