ISSUE # 29b ... DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT ALGEBRA .... Part II
February 21
Paul Menter is also concerned about IRV. Paul's letter gives us the 30,000 foot view of the mess.
See his letter below. (Also see updatedinformation following the Orginal Posting.)
To the Editor,
I’ve been hearing the distant, gravelly voice of Edward P. Benton recently. My 8th grade social studies teacher’s mantra was …”You study the past so you can make better decisions in the present and improve the future.”
Or something like that…
There are certainly plenty of lessons from history going unobserved today. The one on my mind at the moment is elections. Back in 1787 the fifty-five arguably most intelligent men in the United States met in Philadelphia and birthed our Constitution and along with it the first version of our current national system for electing the President – the Electoral College.
It was brand new. Nothing like it had existed before. It had never been tested and there was no historical reference for use as a waypoint in crafting its structure or controlling for its unanticipated consequences. A compromise system, it gave power to the states to create whatever method they desired to vote for their electors who would then vote for the President.
It was nothing short of a disaster.
A series of unintended consequences spurred by Alexander Hamilton’s nefarious manipulations led to unexpected results in 1796 as opponents John Adams and Thomas Jefferson ended up serving together as President and Vice President, and in 1800, when the election was thrown to the House of Representatives for lack of a majority winner. It took 36 ballots over five days before Thomas Jefferson was narrowly elected days before Congress was to adjourn.
Constitutional crisis averted, just barely.
Monday night Aspen’s City Council will consider a new method of electing themselves called instant runoff voting, or “Irv” for short. Without any specifics, away back in November of 2007, Aspen’s voters granted the City carte blanche to create whatever “Irv” system they desired. Hmmm…Sound familiar?
Over a year later, a committee consisting of a few citizens and two (presumably) incumbent candidates unveiled two muddled options. With antiseptic terms to describe them, they sound more like euthanization procedures, “sequential elimination” and “batch elimination”, than election systems.
From these options I understand a third “compromise” solution has emerged; a sort of hybrid “two vote batch elimination” system.
It’s brand new; a system that has never been used anyplace else before for multi seat elections (like the Aspen City Council elections) and for which no historic reference exists for use as a “waypoint” to guide its development and avoid its unintended consequences. As you can imagine, rumors abound about the potential for Hamiltonian style manipulation. Sound familiar?
Technical in nature, the system requires that a custom, one of a kind software program be written in order to tabulate the votes. It is my understanding that Council are requiring no provisions for a secondary hand count or other method to confirm the results of this brand new election system that has never been used anywhere else in the Country and requires a custom software program. Sound familiar?
Our most sacred public process reduced to a black box? Hope I’m wrong!
What would Mr. Benton say? If we don’t heed the mistakes of the past they will haunt us. Aspen, prepare to be haunted.
Paul Menter
Comment from Marilyn 2.21.08:
In an unbelievable turn of events, the city staff is now recommending that council adopt a counting procedure Monday night that has not even been written. The public, including potential candidates, have not even had proper notice and opportunity to read the dozens of pages of the 2 other methods being discussed.
Furthering our suspicions is the fact that there is to be a special software program written for Aspen’s unique method of counting votes. There are no independent testing procedures in place for that new software program. And unbelievably, staff is recommending that the Council deny the citizens’ request for hand counting the ballots to verify the results.
See http://theredant.squarespace.com/storage/IRVMemo_2nd%20Reading_2.pdf
This train needs to be stopped.
==============================================================================
Neil Siegel writes about IRV---INSTANT CHAOS
The City Council is poised to enter the statistical morass of instant run-off voting ( IRV). There is one clear path, consistent with prior run-off practice, the recommendation of the taskforce and consent of the voting public, but given the track record of this incantation of city government to do as it sees fit, nothing is certain. The Council is messing with our votes that could dramatically effect the result of the election. It needs to get it right, there is no compromise, especially when different outcomes are possible.
On the table are two, possibility three schemes to eliminate candidates during IRV. The results vary from scheme to scheme, and critically can differ significantly from the method Aspen has historically used.
When the City Council approved Ordinance 38 calling for IRV and Resolution # 86 two reasons were given:
“ …..eliminating the need to conduct expensive run-off elections at a later date”
“…..the convenience of only having to vote once and financially responsible with taxpayer dollars”.
Never once was there any mention of any perceived defect in the method of vote tabulation used in past run-off elections.
The yeoman efforts of Kathryn Koch and Jim True deserve recognition. But for reasons yet explained implementation is about to run of the rails.
Nowhere in the United States has IRV ever been used in a multi-seat election requiring a majority. Aspen is the first, we are the white rats for IRV. There is no software in existence, to say nothing of vote certified software, to tabulate votes for an Aspen type IRV election. There is no plan to comprehensively test the IRV software and certify its accuracy. There is no contemplation than any hand recount will be possible to verify the results of the election. We are at the mercy of a “black box”.
Importantly, never was there any approval to substantively change the manner of candidate ranking and elimination, only to conduct the election at one time and avoid subsequent run-off elections. Now we are in a worse condition, the City Council incorrectly divining that it has a mandate to determine how our votes will be handled.
The City Council is asked to follow a runoff scheme advanced by the one recorded dissent of that task force, a sitting member of this council expected to seek re-election. Worse yet, the proposed methodology has a built-in bias for an incumbent.
The prudent and correct course is two-fold: [1] adopt the task force recommendation since it replicates most closely our own prior runoff process and most importantly comports with the legislative history and the public will and [2] use IRV this election as a test to gain confidence in the system.
Reader Comments (15)
Rob,
Let me address your main first assertion that the elections for the two seats should be viewed completely independently. This is not the case, there are not two elections for two seats there is ONE election for two seats. This is a key difference to understanding the problems with iterated SE elections. This leads to a fundamental difference in influence that the Minnesota judge never had to consider; after the first candidate is elected a person’s lower ranked choice will count because their candidate was ELECTED not ELIMINATED. There is a distinct philosophical difference in allowing a voter to cast votes for a lower ranked candidate when their candidate is no longer in contention for office and counting a lower ranked preference when their candidate has been elected to office.
Now to address your second point that in all majority elections some people don’t have their votes count for a winner. You’re arguing against a straw man there, I never claimed that everyone should have their vote count for a winner. I stated that everyone should have their top two preferences count. Voters who cast their top preference for the candidate that finishes second for the first seat will rarely have their second preference counted. In a single seat IRV election that’s fine, however when filling the second seat now their first preference is equal to the second preference of voters who voted for the winner of the first seat. This can change the outcome of the election because the order of elimination in IRV can be very important. If there are two seats for city council all voters should have the opportunity to cast votes for two candidates. If the only way IRV can “liberate” me from having a lower preference count against a higher preference is to take my second preference away I’d rather not be liberated.
For people interested in how situations can change with iterated versus simultaneous implementations consider the following game. Take the four aces out of a standard deck of cards. There are two men each will be dealt one of the four cards. Each is asked to place a bet if the ace they receive will be red or black. If both men are dealt cards simultaneously each will have a 50% chance of winning their bet. However if instead of dealing simultaneously the cards are dealt one at a time first man gets a card, he either wins or loses with a 50% probability still. However the second man now has additional information he can look and see what color ace the first man received and place his bet for the opposite color giving him a 67% probability of winning. This isn’t a perfect parallel to what is happening with IRV but it does show how taking a simultaneous process and iterating it can influence a game or system.
Douglas