- Munster Indiana: Candidates come in more than two flavors this election-Vasser said poor decisions by fellow Republicans on the Highland Town Council forced him to switch parties, and he said he believes his roots in the community will transcend party labels. (The Times)
- Meadville Pennsylvania: Surprise party switch may give Tingley edge for commissioner seat (Meadville Tribune)-She said she has been independent of both parties all summer, marching in parades as a separate entry. “So I guess you could say I was independent months ago.”
- New Jersey: Mayoral candidates sound off on S.R. issues-Szegeti, Eppinger, Londensky on ballot in Nov. 6 election-Eppinger, 45, said Londensky may be running for mayor as an independent, but the former Democrat cannot shake off his prior affiliation. (East Brunswick Sentinel)
- Florida: Dispute will alter independent vote-Poll: It increases chance they'll vote Republican (News Press)
INSTANT RUNOFF VOTING
- Aspen Colorado: We support Instant Runoff Voting (An Aspen Times Editorial)
- Washington: Sides differ over value of instant runoff voting in Clallam County (Peninsula Daily News)
OBAMA CAMPAIGN
- The New Comeback Kid-Hillary's plan to win it all in New Hampshire. (by E.J. Dionne, Jr, The New Republic)
- Choosing Sides on Obama, Clinton (Washington Post) scroll down
LOCAL INDEPENDENT CAMPAIGNS
- Virginia: Editorial--Skip the parties in the 9th District-Independent Jerry Boothe offers far more than his Democratic and Republican opponents. (Roanoke Times)
- Ohio: Ruling keeps Lorenzi off fall ballot (The Vindicator)
- New Jersey: McQuade relates to key issues, "Nobody cares Republican or Democrat. They want the right person in there." (Vineland Daily Journal)
5 comments:
Instant Runoff Voting is one of the worst voting methods, and is being pushed forward largely on the basis of misleading propaganda by pro-IRV groups like FairVote. Consider the hard facts that credentialed academics who study election methods have known for decades.
Instant Runoff Voting can lead to the election of candidate X, even when candidate Y is preferred to X by a huge majority. Consider this hypothetical IRV election.
#voters - their vote
10 G > C > P > M
3 C > G > P > M
5 C > P > M > G
6 M > P > C > G
4 P > M > C > G
C is the clear Condorcet (condor-SAY) winner, meaning he is preferred by a landslide majority over all his individual rivals. He is preferred over G, P, and M all by an 18-10 margin.
But... M wins, even though he also has fewer first-place votes (6 voters) than C with 8.
Also:
1. P is preferred to M by 22 of the 28 voters, yet he's the first candidate eliminated.
2. G also has more first-place votes (10) than M's 6.
3. So M either loses pairwise to, or has fewer first-place votes than (or both) every rival, but still IRV elects M.
Notice that the first group of voters could have caused C to win if they had only "lied", and put him first in their list. That would mean they'd get their second favorite instead of their fourth favorite. Statistical analysis reveals that this strategy is advised for all candidates who don't appear to have at least a 20% chance of winning. That means that, contrary to FairVote propaganda, IRV does not let you "vote your hopes, not your fears". And this means that IRV effectively degrades toward plain old plurality (vote-for-one) voting. This is explained in more detail here, by math experts:
http://rangevoting.org/TarrIrv.html
Election integrity experts and activists, like computer science Ph.D. Rebecca Mercuri disapprove of IRV because it is conducive to the adoption of fraud-susceptible electronic voting machines. IRV is also more susceptible to fraud because it is not countable in precincts. That is, candidate A could win every individual precinct, but bizarrely lose when the ballots are all summed together - which enforces centralized tabulation, which is more susceptible to central fraud conspiracy. And IRV typically causes spoiled ballots to go up by a factor of about 7.
http://rangevoting.org/SPRates.html
But FairVote is right about one thing. We need a better voting method than the incredibly terrible plurality system. The best combination of quality and simplicity is called Approval Voting. It's just like the current system, except that there is no limit on the number of candidates one may vote for.
While it may seem initially less intuitive than IRV, deep scrutiny shows that Approval Voting produces a far more representative outcome. This is shown through an objective economic measure called Bayesian regret, which shows how well a particular voting method tends to satisfy the preferences of the voters. The improvement gotten by Approval Voting relative to IRV is especially large if the voters are strategic, as was described above (although FairVote promoters will often falsely claim that the best strategy with Approval Voting is to "bullet vote"). See:
http://rangevoting.org/BayRegDum.html
If we don't mind a somewhat more cluttered ballot, we can upgrade to Range Voting, which uses a ratings scale, like Olympics scoring. It is arguably more intuitive, and produces phenomenal Bayesian regret results, meaning more satisfied voters, and more competitive nominees!
For a look at how the major parties could become dramatically more competitive by merely adopting Range Voting or Approval Voting, see:
http://rangevoting.org/ForDems.html
http://rangevoting.org/ForReps.html
Election reformers must be diligent and do their research. Don't be misled by FairVote's clever marketing. Look at what Ivy League mathematicians and political science experts such as Steve Brams, who write entire books on this stuff, say. FairVote has an agenda, and it's definitely not in the pubic's best interest.
Clay Shentrup
San Francisco, CA
415.240.1973
clay@electopia.org
Hmm.. A lot of slick talk in Clay Shentrup's, but the range voting advocates are awfully short on support by any one with real political savvy or know-how. Mathematicians aren't always the best test of what works politically.
Shentrup may not like FairVote, but see its analysis of range voting's political prospects at www.fairvote.org/rangevoting
Instant runoff voting is gaining strong support for all the right reasons. See www.instantrunoff.com
Well, for my money, I'd settle for participatory democracy.... It matters who's counting the votes, and in this case it's the two parties. Instant runoff voting is a reform that we can advocate for that will lead us to more involvement. How do you get IRV? You have to mobilize voters and put it on the ballot. That's an organizing job. That, in my opinion, is what independent voters need to be doing.
Opinions?
Mr. Hanks,
What makes you think that IRV will "lead to more involvement?" Especially in comparison to the substantially simpler and better Approval Voting?
And why would independent voters want to support IRV, when it results in two-party domination (and massively increases spoiled ballots, and is conducive to the adoption of fraud-prone electronic voting machines)?
A properly educated independent voter should want a system that doesn't enforce duopoly - namely Range Voting, or its simplified form, Approval Voting.
Clay Shentrup
San Francisco, CA
415.240.1973
clay@electopia.org
Post a Comment