Aussies call it “preferential voting” actually.

Tideman’s opinion is noted, but in order to scrutinize it we need to see his evidence – which you do not provide. I have heard a few of his arguments, and they are rather flimsy.

I think it’s great that you advise people to learn the esoterica of voting methods, I but wish that you would follow this advise. Remember, you started off the conversation with the false claim that IRV is free from vote splitting. And now you say that IRV is better than feasible alternatives, when Approval Voting is much more simple and feasible for a variety of reasons, and picks better winners. In light of the numerous problems intrinsic to IRV, it is not a good voting method, and not a good choice for those who want better democracy.

Update: range voting is discussed in the academic literature here: Nicolaus Tideman, Collective Decisions and Voting: The Potential for Public Choice (Ashgate Publishing, 2006): pp. 174-176 and 236-238. For what it’s worth, Tideman rates range voting “unsupportable” (his word), and rates IRV best among the methods that do not require heavy-duty algebra.

By all means, folks should check out range voting. While they’re at it, they should study up on the Condorcet principle, Borda Count, Arrow’s (im)possibility theorem, Smith Sets, and lots more esoterica. A semester or two of welfare economics would be nice; set theory is a prerequisite. It’s a great intellectual passtime.

At the end of your studies, come back to Clay Shentrup’s arguments (which you will find all over the blogosphere) and decide whether they actually make any sense.

While you’re away at school, folks promoting a very good reform (not perfect, but better than the feasible alternatives) will be making headway in the real world.

What we’re calling “instant runoff voting” (IRV) in this discussion is the special case of STV-PR where you are filling only one seat at a time. In Ireland you would probably call it the “alternative vote”, which is how it is known in the U.K., Australia and elsewhere.

The U.S. has many elected executive officials, and also single-member districts for most legislative bodies. The alternative vote/IRV (or — if you’re willing to believe Clay Shentrup — range voting, etc.) is very important here because so many elections are to fill one seat.

Hope this helps,
Bob

Lynne Serpe, as the rep. from the New America
Foundation, gave an excellent report on IRV to the
committee and fielded Mr. Alarcon’s questions
beautifully. Her report follows. I have added some
observations below.

Linda Piera-Avila

_________________________________________________________________

From: Lynne Serpe
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 5:14 PM
Subject: Update: IRV in Daily News, Results of
yesterday’s Rules &
Elections Committee

Hello everyone,

Thank you to everyone who attended yesterday’s Rules &
Elections Committee meeting and/or sent in a letter.
The support
for IRV was abundantly clear!

-Councilmember Jose Huizar and Councilmember Bill
Rosendahl came to the Rules Committee to speak in
favor of IRV.

-Councilmember Wendy Gruel sent a staffer who read a
letter on a range of topics, including her support for
IRV.

-Representatives from the African American Voter
Registration Project,
Asian Pacific American Legal Center, Asian American
Action Fund, Common Cause, FairVote, LA VoteFIRE,
League of Women Voters, and the Southwest Voter
Registration Education Project all spoke in favor, as
did several community members, neighborhood council
members, and poll workers.

-I submitted letters of support from the San Fernando
Valley Young Democrats, California PIRG, Anthony
Thigpenn from
Scope LA and the Los Angeles Community College
District resolution on instant runoff voting.

- CM Garcetti’s office told me they received a large
number of emails as well.

As far as the three-member Rules Committee:
Councilmember Eric Garcetti made his support known.
Councilmember Zine made some very positive statements.
Councilmember Alarcon asked a number of questions and
is not yet convinced of the benefits of IRV. There was
no vote on the Huizar-Garcetti motion (nor any of the
other four motions on the agenda). Instead, as
recommended in Clerk Frank Martinez’ post-election
report:
http://cityclerk.lacity.org/election/2007%20Municipal%20Elections%20Afte
r%20Action%20Rpt.pdf he will be reporting back in
December on a range of topics, including instant
runoff voting.

______________________________________________________________

Linda’s observations:

Steven Hill spoke about San Francisco’s experience
with IRV and he offered assistance when/if LA adopts
the system.
Mike Feinstein spoke about how Santa Monica is
exploring the possibilty of using IRV. I also said a
few words. Ceil Sorensen attended in support.

A few years ago the League of Women Voters did not
support IRV. Now they do. I see this as a very
positive shift.

Mr. Alarcon’s objections centered around two points:
1) would IRV adversely affect minority community
voters?
2) runoff campaigns allow more time for voters to
gather information about the two final candidates,
including sometimes “necessary” negative information.

Now back to Lynne’s email:
_________________________________________________________________

THINGS YOU CAN DO:

1. Write a letter to the Los Angeles Daily News. They
had an article in
today’s paper (below): “Los Angeles may vote for
change: Instant
runoffs, new dates some proposals for combating low
turnout.” Letters
should be no more than 100 words and emailed to:
dnforum at dailynews.com

2. Write a letter to your Council member, mentioning
your support for
IRV and definitely mention that you live in his/her
district!

3. Contact your Neighborhood Council, asking if they
would be willing
to either: have me (or one of my interns) come speak
about IRV, or pass a resolution in favor of IRV if
they have already had a presentation.

You can find out which neighborhood council you live
in at:
http://www.lacityneighborhoods.com/page2.cfm?doc=home

Thank you,

Lynne Serpe

Deputy Director, Political Reform Program, New America
Foundation

213-480-0994 http://www.newamerica.net/politicalreform

***************

Los Angeles may vote for change
Instant runoffs, new dates some proposals for
combating low turnout
by Kerry Cavanaugh, Staff Writer, Los Angeles Daily
News, 06/13/2007

________________________________

To entice Angelenos back to the polls after record-low
turnouts in
recent years, the city is mulling a host of changes,
including new
election dates, more mail-in voting and instant runoff
voting.

In this year’s elections, 10 percent of registered
voters participated
in the March primary and 7 percent turned out for the
May general
election.

The reason?

In a hearing Wednesday, voter education groups cited
voter fatigue from too many elections, complicated
initiatives, language barriers,
negative campaigning, lack of interest in local races
and a growing belief that voting doesn’t matter.

“We really need to bring back what the importance is
of local
elections,” said Jimmy Valentine with the African
American Voter
Registration, Education and Participation Program.
“Your council
members, your school board members, those are the ones
that figure in your daily lives in your community.”

One proposal to increase voter turnout – or at least
reduce voter
fatigue – is instant runoff voting. The system, now
used in San
Francisco, allows voters to rank the candidates in
order of preference.

To determine the winner, officials tally first-choice
candidates. If a
candidate has a majority, he or she wins. If there is
no majority, the
last place candidate is eliminated and ballots that
listed the
candidate as the first choice are recounted using the
second choice. That elimination and recount process is
continued until a candidate gets a majority of votes.

Supporters said instant runoff voting would be cheaper
since there’s
only one election and it could increase participation,
since the number
of voters tends to decrease in local elections between
the primary and
final election.

Councilman Jose Huizar said he began pushing instant
runoff voting
after the last election when he went to vote for the
community college board trustee runoff, and was told
only two other people (beside him and his wife) had
voted.

“I asked myself, wasn’t I just here a few months ago
to vote for this
person?” Huizar said.

So far the proposal has support from Mayor Antonio
Villaraigosa and
several City Council members, but it’s still in the
discussion phase
and would require changing the city charter and
election code.

[Lynne's Note: The Daily News edited Kerry Cavanaugh's
article
incorrectly: the Mayor actually submitted a letter in
support of a
vote-by-mail/extended early voting proposal. He did
not weigh in on
IRV.]

http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_6135443