YouTube Videos on Instant Runoff Voting Consequences
October 12 An election integrity activist has produced some videos which are actually fun to watch about IRV and its problems.
Click to see their descriptions and click through to watch....
http://tinyurl.com/IRVinSTPaul2-- "Is IRV Fair?"
http://tinyurl.com/IRVmoreVotes - See what happens when a Candidate gets too much support.
http://tinyurl.com/IRVlast2First - See what happens when a candidate get broad support, goes from last place to first in a precinct.
http://tinyurl.com/IRVfalseMajority - IRV consistently fails to elect candidates with a majority of support.
http://tinyurl.com/IRVsecondVotes - Why do some voters get to vote twice?
http://tinyurl.com/IRVmissingBallots - See how two ballots can change the destiny of a town.
http://tinyurl.com/IRVeveryVoteCounts - Why show up to vote when your vote can count against all you believe in?
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (5)
Marilyn -- I'm glad you have been supporting support the principle of majority voting through the mechanism of traditional two-round runoff elections. Others support it in a single-round instant runoff that lessen the impact of campaign spending, reduce the cost of elections and maximize turnout in one election. But both traditional runoffs and instant runoff v oitng correct the very straightforward problems associated with plurality non-majority voting.
Note that all of these videos are basically AGAINST the majority principle. The "paradoxes" presented here are exactly the same with two-round runoffs. I wanted to make sure you realize that. (Ironically, Terry Reilly, who made these videos, is defending a two-round runoff process in San Jose. So his videos actually explose his current system ttto the same "paradoxes", but he neglects to say that.)
For some thoughts on instant runoff voting, runoffs and alternative, you might be interested in my recent blogpost here:
http://www.fairvote.org/blog/2009/10/single-winner-reform-and-why-fairvote-supports-instant-runoff-voting/
These videos show me that IRV is completely different than the voting system we now use. Anyone can see that. All you need to do is click on the links and watch them. Thank you for posting them. They are very informative. I like the one where candidate pets the cat!
Marilyn. Your recent email to people in Aspen about instant runoff voting made a number of claims. Here are your claims compared with the facts.
YOUR CLAIM: "Six other cities/counties in the U.S. have tried IRV in recent years. Two have already repealed it. Another is facing a citizen's petition to repeal. Aspen is the 4th of 7 users with significant indications of buyer's remorse."
FACT: No jurisdiction has repealed IRV since 1975. The only one that comes close is Cary, NC, which decided not to use IRV in 2009. But its vote to use IRV in 2007 was for a one-time pilot, and using IRV in 2009 would have required another affirmative vote. With the council uncertain how ballots were going to be counted when they voted, they decided to keep the status quo, which is two-round runoffs.
But importantly, a majority of voters loved IRV in Cary. More than 70% of Cary voters preferred IRV to their former runoff system in a North Carolina State exit poll taken during the 2007 elections. Furthermore, a full poll conducted by Cary in 2008 affirmed an overwhelming preference for using IRV again rather than keeping the traditional runoff system. On a scale of 1 to 9, with 1 being most opposed to 9 being most in favor, fully 67.1% indicated a 7 or higher (including 51% indicating the highest level of 9) while only 6.9% indicated 3 or less. Now Cary is in the midst of an expensive runoff because one council race left the frontrunner with 49.97% meaning less than 0.04% short of a majority needed to avoid a runoff. Cary may well use IRV again in 2011.
In addition, there is a vote on repealing IRV in Pierce County (WA) on November 3rd. Put on the ballot by a seven-member county council that includes three people who lost in countywide IRV races in 2008 (including Shawn Bunney, who outspent the winner in the county executive race by nearly four to one), the repeal is opposed by both daily papers serving the county and the League of Women Voters. I find it instructive that the leaders in efforts to repeal IRV are all candidates who lost narrow races and blame the new system -- you in Aspen and two Republican nominees for county executive in Pierce County and for mayor in Burlington who led after the first round, but failed to win a majority in the instant runoff.
CLAIM: "IRV cheats when calculating the required "majority." Aspen's Charter requires a MAJORITY (over 50% of "votes cast"), for electing mayor and council. But to make IRV "work," Council (3 of whom were up for re-election), created a system that perverted the definition of 50%+1 to mean only those voters diligent or clairvoyant enough to rank at least one of the two finalists in each race. Example: Even AFTER allocation of 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. rankings to count as #1 votes for Torre or Behrendt, Torre won with 42.5% of the votes cast in the race, but was declared the "majority" winner. (If you voted but failed to rank Behrendt or Torre, your ballot was disregarded.) Even if voters want to retain IRV, we must change our Charter or change our IRV method. Today IRV violates the Charter."
FACT: IRV doesn't "cheat majorities" -- it simply allows voters to abstain. The voter turnout dropped for the final round of Torre's win, but traditional runoffs often have declines in turnout as well -- indeed an average of more than a third lower in the 116 congressional primary runoffs since 1994. Just as a traditional runoff is called a majority system even if the candidate winning the runoff does not win a majority of votes in the first round, instant runoff voting is a called a majority system for the first round. The winner secures a majority of the vote in the final round against their top opponent.
CLAIM: "IRV has unpredictable anomalies. "Non-monotonicity" inherent in IRV had the strange effect of causing Behrendt harm with 75 or so of his supporters' #1 votes. They could have helped him win by ranking him #2 to Jack Johnson instead of voting their true feelings and ranking Behrendt #1. If they had known to lower their ranking for Behrendt in this way, Behrendt would have won. A system that plays such bizarre math tricks on voters is just unacceptable!"
FACT: You say you support a return to runoff elections. But the fact is that runoffs and indeed ANY system that eliminates candidates during the court of the process are just as susceptible to "non-monotonicty" to IRV.
Looking at this particular example, you are saying that Behrendt would have won against Jack Johnson in a runoff, but lost to Torre. So if Torre could have been kept out of the runoff, Behrendt would have won. The exact same thing would have been true in a traditional runoff process, of course. In a runoff election process, however, you actually might try to get your voters to change their votes based on remarkably predicting this potential outcome, because your voters can switch votes between rounds. But with IRV your voters can't switch candidates and it's ludicrous to suggest that Behrendt voters would have somehow done this.
And bottom line is that a stronger candidate that day than Behrendt won. This analysis somehow suggests the wrong person won. That's of course not true.
CLAIM: "IRV software is unreliable and will be costly to repair and thoroughly test before the next election."
FACT: - IRV software is not unreliable and will not cost anything before the next election. The tabulating software used in Aspen is also used in cities like Burlington, VT and Cambridge, MA, including in Cambridge on November 3rd. In Burlington this year, the losing candidate called off the recount halfway through after it was clear that the software had tallied the race correctly and he was going to lose by the same margin.
I found this site looking for election information. Rob Richie must not like you. It is clear he is trying to hard, which in my book means he is on the wrong side of the facts. I can't follow his logic, I can follow yours Marylyn. I like the videos as well. Easy to understand. I'm glad Aspen voted to stop using Instant Runoff Voting.
Ellie,
thanks. no Rob does not like my views on IRV.
I wish that we had had a definitive charter amendment to repeal irv.
Unfortunately it was only an advisory vote.
We will have to work hard to make sure that this question is not relegated to "study" forever, while IRV remains in place.
thanks for your comment.
IRV didn't really have a great day yesterday, with Aspen voting no, Piece County WA voting NO!
And Willie Brown in San Fran saying NO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtkNTaSXzF4
Marilyn