Comments on: Minnesota Republican Elected to State House with only 36.7% of Vote

By: Craig M.

Craig M. — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:45:56 +0000

Daniel, Thank you for the info. I read quite a bit and, based on the info in your links, agree that Range is better. One question: On paper ballots, like the one I filled out last month, how does a person vote? In other words, is the voter putting an X next to each candidate that meets his approval?

By: Craig M.

Craig M. — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:34:24 +0000

Thank you for the info. I’ll read the link soon…

By: Daniel Ong

Daniel Ong — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 04:53:10 +0000

Craig M, see my link for a brief comparison of IRV vs. Score Voting, aka Range Voting: score (or rate or grade) all the candidates (ignore blanks), highest average score wins.

For “accuracy,” or mathematical determination of the “best” voting method (resulting in a selection closest to that with the least overall “regret” among the voters), see
http://rangevoting.org/UniqBest.html Score Voting is the best single-winner voting system whether voters are completely honest, strategic, or a mix.

All ranked voting methods (order your preferences as first, second, third, etc.; our current plurality system only considers your first choice) are subject to Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem: none is best. As William Poundstone quotes in “Gaming the vote: why elections are unfair (and what we can do about it),” “The lesson of Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem is: don’t used ranked voting systems.” The first part of his book is about exactly the situation described here: vote splitting with three or more candidates.

But Score Voting (and Approval Voting, the strategically exaggerating version of Score Voting and also a good voting system and which would get us the most improvement for the least change, although not as precise) are NOT ranked voting systems and NOT subject to the conditions of Arrow’s Theorem, and would meet its criteria with suitable adaptation of the criteria.

By: ETJB

ETJB — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:48:04 +0000

Also, their is a bit of a legal dispute over a MN Supreme Court ruling over alternative voting methods that may or may not apply to IRV.

By: ETJB

ETJB — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:47:28 +0000

Unless I am mistaken, an Independent candidate in MN is not allowed to select a brief political philosophy or principle label that has the word Independent in it.

They can appear on the ballot as an Independent or with a minor party label that meets certain rules and one of them was not to use Indepedent or other non-partisan labels.

No doubt, a movement will arise to take a look at his birth records…;0)

I would have to have more knowledge about the NC situation because their are many different voting methods and they often get mislabled.

Proportional representation would basically offer more viable choices in a legislative election, typicaly 6 or less parties.

It is harder to sell to incumbent lawmakers (and often voters) because it would alter our two-party system.

By: Craig M.

Craig M. — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:25:39 +0000

Can someone point me to a website that describes which voting method is superior? I am a fan of IRV but can switch if there is something similar which produces more accurate results….

By: Joyce McCloy

Joyce McCloy — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:03:45 +0000

IRV does not guarantee a majority winner. IRV was tried in Cary North Carolina in their municipal elections in 2007. In the one contest where the 2nd and 3rd rounds were counted, the winner won with less than a majority of all votes cast.
Don Frantz won the District B contest with 46.36% of the total ballots cast for that contest.

By: Demo Rep

Demo Rep — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:58:57 +0000

Proportional Representation NOW.

Total Votes / Total Seats = EQUAL votes needed for each seat winner — via vote transfers of surplus votes and loser votes using pre-election public candidate rank order lists.

Single member districts are derived from the political DARK AGE — i.e. 1200s in England.

By: Clay Shentrup

Clay Shentrup — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:49:32 +0000

Well, this should increase interest in superior voting methods, but not Instant Runoff Voting specifically. Here’s a hypothetical IRV election where Sarkozy wins with 65% of the final vote count, even though 65% of the voters would rather have Bayrou.

__% of voters — their order of preference__
33% Royal > Bayrou > Sarkozy
2% Bayrou > Royal > Sarkozy
30% Bayrou > Sarkozy > Royal
35% Sarkozy > Bayrou > Royal

By: PTK

PTK — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 21:47:01 +0000

Darn it, so close to having another independent victory!