Slashdot Mirror

I agree with your underlying idea. I too was once a fan of IRV, but I recently learned (from other readers on slashdot!) about the problematic aberrations which can occur with run-off voting (instant or otherwise).

The page I linked to walks through several examples showing where IRV causes problems similar to our current voting method.

e.g. in close races with IRV, it is possible to cause your candidate to win by voting against him (A) and voting for a third-party (C) in order to eliminate the other major candidate (B) in run-off fashion.

i.e. the problem is the way IRV totally eliminates the lowest candidate to calculate the winner in non-trivial cases.

The site suggests another system called "Condorcet" which seems to be a much more fair and consistent way of calculating a winner.

In light of this new information, the paranoid in me is starting to think that IRV might be a superficial tactic for our appeasement, actually intended to further subjugate us. ;)

Tin-foil hats for everyone! :)

I can't find www.votingmethods.org...

did you mean election methods??

The actual site I wanted to refer to is here

Here is another site that seems to argue differently and thinks Instant Runoff is better than Condorcet. Possibly this is a liberal slant, which may indicate that there is belief that Instant Runoff helps liberals, while Condorcet helps conservatives (or libertarians, who don't want to be called conservative), though I can't think of any real reason why.

However both sites think "Approval" voting is better than Instant Runoff.

Reference

Here's an evaluation of several voting methods. IRV doesn't do too well. Condorcet is the best of the bunch, but it may prove easier to switch to Approval voting in the short term.

Here's an evaluation of several voting methods. IRV doesn't do too well. Condorcet is the best of the bunch, but it may prove easier to switch to Approval voting in the short term.

Here's an evaluation of several voting methods. IRV doesn't do too well. Condorcet is the best of the bunch, but it may prove easier to switch to Approval voting in the short term.

The Problem with Instant Runoff Voting

Approval or Condorcet.
Preferably Condorcet.

Yes, it's so much better to use Instant Runoff, because then I can vote for a candidate to cause them to lose, where if I didn't vote, they would win. Instant Runoff always seems to have the most mindshare of the alternative voting systems, and it is also the only system seriously being looked at that works worse than our current system. Condorcet is a much better system, and Approval is a close second with the advantage of simplicity. IRV is dead last. Check out http://www.electionmethods.org/ for more information.

I have seen arguments that the "Instant Runoff Voting" method used in Austraila is mathmatically flawed and this may be a result. Straight "approval voting" where you don't rank anybody is apparently better.

A whole lot of information is here. Note that the site appears to have a slight Libertarian bias, but I don't think this detracts from the mathematical accuracy of their analysis.

Sig: "how democracy should work: http://ElectionMethods.org"

Should be a link ElectionMethods.org

Some related comments, re. Arrow's Theorem on Voting

~Morosoph

It uses the same paper ballots we have now, and only minor modifications in the counting process.

Why Approval Voting Should Be Approved Now

why? becauses the mechanics of your government is WOEFULLY broken. Designed for a different era, the ability for your government to form a represnentative and effective body is impossible.

You havent elected someone outside of the Republicrats in 100 years. The first-past-the-post electoral college nonesense is absolute stupidity. Try some meaningfull finance reform (1 federal vote equals $? funding for every vote you get above X% of popular vote... (your 2 big parties have are being bought-off by the plutocrats -- and this big money has destroyed democratic access))

Start thinking about runoff/Condorcet/approval or some other voting method. Then consider a manner of proportional representation....

Pretty good ideas. However, you might want to do some searching on approval voting and Condorcet as they both address some major flaws with instant runoff voting.

Instant runoffs sound good when you listen to them, but if you actually work out the numbers in a closely contested election involving more than two parties, you'll find that all kinds of strange situations can come up. It really only works when you have a de-facto two-party system and a minority of one party wants to vote for somebody else in protest.

Election methods.org has a good writeup of some alternative vote-counting systems and their pros and cons. Approval voting is considered by some to be the method which best combines simplicity with workability in a multi-party environment. In theory Condorcet is probably the best, but to somebody who can't follow math it would seem like a black box that they would have no reason to trust.

An interesting feature of democracy is that the system should exist to serve those who are in the minority. If congress votes 51-49% to pass a law which will benefit some while costing others, it is important for the 49% to feel that they really are sacrificing for the greater good and not just to benefit some official's campaign fund. Otherwise you end up with internal divisions. Most people are willing to not have their way as long as they understand why they have to do so, and have a feeling that the overall system is fair.

Overall, though, I think you have a lot of good suggestions. And responding to another sub-thread here - politics is too important to trust it to just the politicians.

Ya that'd be great, a system where voting for someone can CAUSE them to lose.

7 votes for A, B, C
6 votes for B, A, C
5 votes for C, B, A
3 votes for D, C, B

D gets dropped, then B gets dropped, and finally A wins (A:13 vs C:8).

But if the last three voters instead voted A, D, C, B then A loses BECAUSE they voted for A:

7 votes for A, B, C
6 votes for B, A, C
5 votes for C, B, A
3 votes for A, D, C, B

D gets dropped, then C gets dropped, and finally B wins (B:11 vs A:10)

In instant RunOff Voting there are the following problems:
-Raising your vote for someone can cause them to lose (Monotonicity Criterion)
-Lowering your vote for someone can cause them to win (Monotonicity Criterion)
-A one on one comparison between the winner and any other candidate should show the winner being preferred in every pair. IRV doesn't do this. (Condorcet Criterion)
-Doesn't scale at all. The possible votes are basically a factorial. Sorry if its hard to describe the formulaes. But the number of possibilites without truncation is N! with truncation its the summation of permutations. sPn (where s=1 to n-1) xPy = x!/(x-y)!

California's recall would of just not scaled with IRV. Suppose 100 candidates then the number of possible votes is 100! + 100!/2! + 100!/3! + ... + 100!/98! + 100!/99!

-It's not easy to understand by the common guy (not /. ) imagine the news trying to explain HOW a candidate won.

For detailed explanation of these problems:
http://electionmethods.org/evaluation.htm

A condorcet method would be a more sound election method, because basically the voter ranks the candidates. Then the method sees which candidates are preferred by one-on-one comparisons. Joe Shmoe can understand this because when the news comes on, it just shows the comparison of the winner to every other candidate.

IRV is a mistake. It only gives the illusion of helping minor parties win. Approval Voting is what we need. See ElectionMethods.org

Might check out Condorcet's method, which allows an instant-runoff type election in a manner that has no incentive for "strategic voting" (i.e., changing one's vote because of one's preferred candidate's perceived chances of winning) and mathematically finds the best compromise candidate based on the voters' expressed preferences.

http://electionmethods.org/

Run-off systems are just as broken. Imagine a "left" candidate and a "right" candidate each with relatively broad support, and a "moderate" candidate with much smaller core support. Liken these to the US Democrat (liberal/left), Republican (conservative/right), and old (Perot) Reform (socially liberally, fiscally conservative) parties, if you will. Both the left and the right candidates would prefer Mr. Moderate over the "other" guy. Intuitively, a compromise that 10% love and 90% can live with is better than an extremist that 55% (a majority!) despise, even if the largest single block (still a minority!) do love him.

The problem is that candidates are evaluated sequentially instead of simultaneously. If you eliminate any candidates before his preferences are fully evaluated, you are cheating the voters! A runoff system only evaluates preferences of those who like one of the two most pluralistic candidates, and only against his biggest competitor. You have not evaluated the right/moderate preferences, you have not evaluated the left/moderate preferences, and you completely throw out the top preference of everyone who liked Mr. Moderate as if they had no voice at all! Everyone who voted honestly for the moderate candidate in this scenario has still "thrown their vote away".

You said that in your system, you need a true majority. The only way you can guarantee a true majority all the time is to have only two candidates. A good political system (one that cherishes freedom) has to provide more options than that. What you are really looking for is a system that puts every candidate in a true head-to-head match against every other candidate. (How can you know that Nader votes would go to Gore, if Nader was never in head-to-head with Bush? And why couldn't we also say that Gore votes would go to Nader? Why does Nader have to be the one to drop out - why doesn't Gore drop out instead?) This is what the Condorcet method does - allow voters to express a full slate of preferences, and then all possible head-to-head matches are simulated based on those preferences. Now the definition of "winning" is not "who gets more votes than anyone else" but instead "who wins more voter preferences than anyone else"! That's what we're really trying to measure - honest voter preference - isn't it?

A good system ought to be able to please most people to some degree. A simple plurality system, or even a runoff system, caters to the largest (most vocal) minority. Please please please review the Condorcet method before you promote this uninformed runoff idea any more.

The main problem in the USA isn't how we gather votes, although there are problems in some states (Florida). There is a more fundamental problem in that we aren't using the right voting mechanism. In the US, we use plurality voting -- a.k.a "first across the line" -- to determine who wins an election. This means that a candidate for whom only 30% of the people voted can win an election simply because there was no other single candidate with more votes.

This has a number of problems, but they can all be summed up by saying that plurality is one of the least fair, if not the least fair, way of determining the winner of a democratic election that you can get. Consider:

• Say 40% of the people vote for candidate A
• 35% of the people want candidate B
• 25% want candidate C

This situation encourages strategic voting; that is to say, voters for C have to decide whether they want to vote honestly, for C, or whether they should vote for B just to make that they don't get their least favorite candidate, A.

This is why we only have two parties in the US, and why -- despite the large number of Greens and Libertarians, neither party has a chance of winning. We don't even know what percentage of the US population is Green or Libertarian (or anything else, for that matter) because they aren't voting honestly. They're voting for the lesser of two evils. This system practically guarantees alienation of the largest number of people -- the majority ends up with a candidate they don't want, unless they lie when voting and vote for the candidate that they dislike the least who also has the best chance of winning.

There are voting mechanisms which allow people to vote their true opinion without being alienated. The most popular are Condorcet -- complex, but the most fair; Approval Voting -- not as fair as Condorcet, but much simpler, and can be implemented with existing voting technology; and Instant Runoff -- less fair than approval, no more simple -- but better than plurality.

Many democratic countries do not use plurality voting, although plurality is the most common. For example, Australia, Northern Ireland, and the Irish Republic (among others) use single transferable vote[1]. In fact, 68 countries (~2b ppl) use plurality, 31 countries (~400m ppl) use single transferable vote, and two countries (~18m ppl) use IRV (instant runoff) -- this is according to International IDEA Handbook.

There is a huge amount of information about Condorcet and Approval Voting available on the web. The Citizens for Approval Voting page is a good start, if you're at all interested in improving voting in the US. If you're interested in the mechanics and mathematics of the systems, start with Condorcet -- most sites that talk about Condorcet are less about how to get it implemented politically, and are more about how it works, fairness tests, and how it compares to other systems. The Wikipedia entry for "voting system" is particularly useful.

The main problem in the USA isn't how we gather votes, although there are problems in some states (Florida). There is a more fundamental problem in that we aren't using the right voting mechanism. In the US, we use plurality voting -- a.k.a "first across the line" -- to determine who wins an election. This means that a candidate for whom only 30% of the people voted can win an election simply because there was no other single candidate with more votes.

This has a number of problems, but they can all be summed up by saying that plurality is one of the least fair, if not the least fair, way of determining the winner of a democratic election that you can get. Consider:

• Say 40% of the people vote for candidate A
• 35% of the people want candidate B
• 25% want candidate C

This situation encourages strategic voting; that is to say, voters for C have to decide whether they want to vote honestly, for C, or whether they should vote for B just to make that they don't get their least favorite candidate, A.

This is why we only have two parties in the US, and why -- despite the large number of Greens and Libertarians, neither party has a chance of winning. We don't even know what percentage of the US population is Green or Libertarian (or anything else, for that matter) because they aren't voting honestly. They're voting for the lesser of two evils. This system practically guarantees alienation of the largest number of people -- the majority ends up with a candidate they don't want, unless they lie when voting and vote for the candidate that they dislike the least who also has the best chance of winning.

There are voting mechanisms which allow people to vote their true opinion without being alienated. The most popular are Condorcet -- complex, but the most fair; Approval Voting -- not as fair as Condorcet, but much simpler, and can be implemented with existing voting technology; and Instant Runoff -- less fair than approval, no more simple -- but better than plurality.

Many democratic countries do not use plurality voting, although plurality is the most common. For example, Australia, Northern Ireland, and the Irish Republic (among others) use single transferable vote[1]. In fact, 68 countries (~2b ppl) use plurality, 31 countries (~400m ppl) use single transferable vote, and two countries (~18m ppl) use IRV (instant runoff) -- this is according to International IDEA Handbook.

There is a huge amount of information about Condorcet and Approval Voting available on the web. The Citizens for Approval Voting page is a good start, if you're at all interested in improving voting in the US. If you're interested in the mechanics and mathematics of the systems, start with Condorcet -- most sites that talk about Condorcet are less about how to get it implemented politically, and are more about how it works, fairness tests, and how it compares to other systems. The Wikipedia entry for "voting system" is particularly useful.

The main problem in the USA isn't how we gather votes, although there are problems in some states (Florida). There is a more fundamental problem in that we aren't using the right voting mechanism. In the US, we use plurality voting -- a.k.a "first across the line" -- to determine who wins an election. This means that a candidate for whom only 30% of the people voted can win an election simply because there was no other single candidate with more votes.

This has a number of problems, but they can all be summed up by saying that plurality is one of the least fair, if not the least fair, way of determining the winner of a democratic election that you can get. Consider:

• Say 40% of the people vote for candidate A
• 35% of the people want candidate B
• 25% want candidate C

This situation encourages strategic voting; that is to say, voters for C have to decide whether they want to vote honestly, for C, or whether they should vote for B just to make that they don't get their least favorite candidate, A.

This is why we only have two parties in the US, and why -- despite the large number of Greens and Libertarians, neither party has a chance of winning. We don't even know what percentage of the US population is Green or Libertarian (or anything else, for that matter) because they aren't voting honestly. They're voting for the lesser of two evils. This system practically guarantees alienation of the largest number of people -- the majority ends up with a candidate they don't want, unless they lie when voting and vote for the candidate that they dislike the least who also has the best chance of winning.

There are voting mechanisms which allow people to vote their true opinion without being alienated. The most popular are Condorcet -- complex, but the most fair; Approval Voting -- not as fair as Condorcet, but much simpler, and can be implemented with existing voting technology; and Instant Runoff -- less fair than approval, no more simple -- but better than plurality.

Many democratic countries do not use plurality voting, although plurality is the most common. For example, Australia, Northern Ireland, and the Irish Republic (among others) use single transferable vote[1]. In fact, 68 countries (~2b ppl) use plurality, 31 countries (~400m ppl) use single transferable vote, and two countries (~18m ppl) use IRV (instant runoff) -- this is according to International IDEA Handbook.

There is a huge amount of information about Condorcet and Approval Voting available on the web. The Citizens for Approval Voting page is a good start, if you're at all interested in improving voting in the US. If you're interested in the mechanics and mathematics of the systems, start with Condorcet -- most sites that talk about Condorcet are less about how to get it implemented politically, and are more about how it works, fairness tests, and how it compares to other systems. The Wikipedia entry for "voting system" is particularly useful.

Any system based on "runoff rounds" is going to fail. All the candidates need to be evaluated simultaneously not sequentially. Instant Runoff Voting is just a a dressed-up Plurality system; worse actually, because third parties are given the illusion that they can win. We need Condorcet Voting - cast votes in the same was as IRV, but count them differently. Condorcet is the only system I know of that allows voters to vote honestly instead of strategically - that in itself is a worthy goal for a voting system. Any good voting system must allow this liberty of conscience, and not ask voters to choose the "lesser of two evils".

I think that page is mistaken. It seems to imply that Approval Voting requires strategic reversal. In other words, I want the Democrats but I vote Republican to achieve that. This is contrary to what every other source I've seen about Approval Voting says.

[in Approval Voting] "Defensive reversal of true preferences is never needed as it often is under plurality and IRV."

Yup, and that's the source of the problem. Here's a voting scenario I whipped together. There are better examples at ElectionMethods.org, but this one is mine:

22 rank ABECD
21 rank BADEC
20 rank CDEAB
19 rank DECBA
18 rank ECBDA

22 ABxCD
21 BADxC
20 CDxAB
19 DxCBA
18 xCBDA

22 ABxCx
21 BAxxC
20 CxxAB
19 xxCBA
18 xCBxA

Next, let's kick it up a notch and see what happens if a few people who favored D instead voted for C:

22 ABECD
21 BADEC
23 CDEAB
16 DECBA
18 ECBDA

22 ABECx
21 BAxEC
23 CxEAB
16 xECBA
18 ECBxA

22 AxECx
21 xAxEC
23 CxEAx
16 xECxA
18 ECxxA

22 AxExx
21 xAxEx
23 xxEAx
16 xExxA
18 ExxxA

If you're going to use numerical ranking, Condorcet is clearly superior to IRV. If not, Approval is easily implemented and avoids paradoxes efficiently.

Oops, you mis-capitalized that URL. I'm also a big fan of Approval Voting; it's simple and elegant.

Also known as Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). This method has serious problems when examined according to technical fairness criteria.

The issue is that IRV works OK until a third party becomes viable - then, all bets are off. The article mentioned above quotes the following as an advantage:

It promotes a strong two-party system, ensuring stability in the parliamentary process.

Is this an advantage? I think not. The more common system, plurality or "first-past-the-post", which to be fair is even worse than IRV, does the same thing by artificially encouraging people to vote for front-runners. I would argue that any such artificial bias towards any party is a bad thing, and that the vote should reflect the true preferences of the voters as accurately as possible. IRV is an illusory fad in this regard.

Approval Voting and the Condorcet Method are much better. Condorcet is technically the best available method, but approval is (for the US anyway) also a good choice because it offers good technical compliance and ease of practical implementation.

Glad they've got a good voting machine. Next they should get a good election method. Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) has major problems (though there is a variant that attempts to correct them).

Glad they've got a good voting machine. Next they should get a good election method. Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) has major problems (though there is a variant that attempts to correct them).

Take a look at my Graphical Voter Interface.

I want to see the Dean campaign (or somebody!) release software implementing alternative voting methods. Everybody's talking about voting machines, but not many are talking about the software and algorithms, which make more of a difference IMHO. Dean has expressed support for Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), but there are better methods out there.

I've built an online poll demonstrating these methods (see my sig), but I wouldn't call my stuff release-worthy just yet (it's pretty slow, and I lost my source in a HD crash last week anyway)...

A reasonable relaxation of Arrow's definition of the IIAC criterion would allow Condorcet to pass.

So you recognize the problem, understand the deeper issue underlying it, and empathize with the position. Yet you won't stand on your conviction because the system is biased against honest voters. But you fail to mention what you are doing to change the system. Are you lobbying your Congress-critters to change the electoral method? Are you informing yourself of the alternatives (such as Condorcet voting) so that you can educate others to do the same? Until then, save your breath.

I consider myself a relatively outspoken advocate of electoral reform. Trying to push such a change through using the current system is going to be very difficult, possibly as difficult as electing a third party under the current system. It's a chicken-or-the-egg problem, but one of them has got to happen. I encourage everyone to do both: vote your conscience regardless of how "winnable" the candidate is, and promote electoral reform to anyone who will listen. Until more people see there is a problem, and are shown how to fix the problem, we're stuck with the problem. The problem doesn't solve itself by voting for the same ol' establishment Duopoly candidates.

Once again, IRV is not the solution it seems to be. The same problem exists, it's just better hidden. Condorcet is the way to go. You're right that it would make politics more interesting though. Since 1960, turnout for presidential elections has been declining, except in 1992 - the Perot year. People want more choices! Two choices is only one more than they had in the USSR. Politics is more complex than a one-dimensional spectrum.

Once again, IRV is not the solution it seems to be. The same problem exists, it's just better hidden. Condorcet is the way to go. You're right that it would make politics more interesting though. Since 1960, turnout for presidential elections has been declining, except in 1992 - the Perot year. People want more choices! Two choices is only one more than they had in the USSR. Politics is more complex than a one-dimensional spectrum.

The article was extremely misleading in its claim that academics such as David Dill at Stanford are opposed to DRE voting systems. Dill does not *oppose* DREs, he just believes that they should produce a paper ballot, which should be used at least for a back-up or verification of the electronically recorded votes.

The article mentions a "chain voting scam" that backup paper ballots are supposedly vulnerable to, but it says nothing whatsoever about how the scam works. Does anyone know what this is all about?

By the way, please read Ensuring the Integrity of Electronic Voting.

From Ensuring the Integrity of Electronic Voting:

The integrity of electronic voting in public general elections with secret ballots can be ensured only if the following precautions are taken:

* generate and use paper ballots

* use open computer architecture and open-source software

* prohibit online voting in general elections (except in rare cases)

Since when is intelligence a requirement to vote? Last I checked, morons had the same rights as anyone else. You sound pretty stuck on your own superiority. Kind of like Adolf Hitler.

Never mind that some voters have problems unrelated to their intelligence, like poor eyesight, poor muscle control, etc. An electronic system, whatever its security flaws, can provide features that help confirm the voter's choice. Not to mention that the presentation of the choices can be easily randomized to help avoid bias toward the top-listed candidate.

Oh, and I'm not stupid, but I still can't vote for the guy I want without wasting my vote. Electronic systems would make it a LOT easier to implement better voting algorithms.

If Diebold is tampering with the votes, we need to stop them NOW. But security is only one aspect of these systems, and the only real drawback besides cost.

It's Condorcet ranking with circular ambiguity, as far as I can tell.

Election Methods

Sure, you're not talking voting, but the ranking at the end of the vote is, if I read you correctly, the same thing as what you're talking about.

The disadvantage of these machines is that they are pretty inflexible. A computer-based system can more thoroughly confirm the vote with the voter (through voice prompts, pictures, etc.), can randomize the candidate listing, and can do any number of other things to ensure a fair and accurate vote. Computer-based, yes; but internet-based voting is still too insecure IMHO.

One other benefit of computer-based systems is that they allow the algorithm to be changed easily. Existing mechanical machines do plurality voting, and that's it. Plurality voting (one vote for one candidate, period) is probably the WORST method we could use, compared to other methods such as Approval, Borda, Condorcet, or even IRV. Electronic voting machines will be a huge step towards implementing a change from the drastically inadequate, inaccurate, and biased voting system we use today.

Take a look at your numbers: you've got a majority of people preferring X to Y, a majority preferring Y to Z, and a majority preferring Z to X. In that sort of situation, you might as well roll a die to decide who gets elected.

It's easy to think of realistic failures of IRV, though. Here's one from electionmethods.org:

Consider the following vote count with four candidates {A,B,C,D}:

7: A,B,C
6: B,A,C
5: C,B,A
3: D,C,B

Applying the rules of IRV, candidate A wins. But suppose the three voters who voted (D,C,B) now promote A from last choice all the way up to first choice, without changing the relative order of the other candidates. Now B wins instead of A. So by promoting A from last to first choice, those voters caused A to lose instead of win. An election method that allows such nonsensical anomalies is erratic and should be rejected.

On the other hand, with Condorcet voting in that example, B would clearly win (since he would beat A by 14-7, C by 13-8, and D by 18-3), there would be no way for voters who preferred other candidates to B to falsify their votes to make the other candidate win, and there would be no way for voters who changed their minds and preferred B even more to accidentally "sabotage" his victory.

See my other posts on this story. IRV is harmful, despite claims to the contrary.

Also, from what I've heard, only half the industry was deregulated. (Wish I still had the reference, but I'm not from CA so don't keep track of those things so well.) It's not a free market if gov't is still controlling half of it. Really deregulate and things will improve.

I'm opposed to recall for a very different reason: it's a kludge to "fix" a broken voting system. The possibility of being elected with less than 50% support is bad, but recall is not the best way to fix it. If he's really doing that bad, there should be an impeachment process. The problem there is that the legislature is also elected with the same broken system. There's nothing wrong with proposing a new voting system to fix California's ills. What really needs to be done though, is to address the fact that plurality voting is a broken system by replacing it with a better one!

However, IRV is not the method that should replace plurality voting. Condorcet trounces IRV in every way that matters - even plurality is demonstrably better than IRV! IRV is deceptive because it gives voters a false sense that they've got a real choice, but in reality it's just as bad as the current plurality system. Run-offs need to be done simultaneously (Condorcet) not sequentially (IRV) to be fair.

Implementing Condorcet would encourage third party involvement. We need more voices in government, not fewer. After all, two choices is only one more than they had in communist Russia, and both options of the "Duopoly" gravitate toward the middle to get votes. That's not real choice! If you look at voter turnout in presidential races from 1960 on, it was a steady downward decline...with one exception: 1992. What happened in 1992? Ross Perot ran a strong third party campaign. It's clear that people want choice in politics.

Vote third party. Vote your conscience regardless of what the pundits and "strategists" say. The only strategy you should need in the booth is honesty to your ideals! The only way we're likely to see voting reform is if we get a third party into office, but we're going to have to do it with the current broken system.

I'm opposed to recall for a very different reason: it's a kludge to "fix" a broken voting system. The possibility of being elected with less than 50% support is bad, but recall is not the best way to fix it. If he's really doing that bad, there should be an impeachment process. The problem there is that the legislature is also elected with the same broken system. There's nothing wrong with proposing a new voting system to fix California's ills. What really needs to be done though, is to address the fact that plurality voting is a broken system by replacing it with a better one!

However, IRV is not the method that should replace plurality voting. Condorcet trounces IRV in every way that matters - even plurality is demonstrably better than IRV! IRV is deceptive because it gives voters a false sense that they've got a real choice, but in reality it's just as bad as the current plurality system. Run-offs need to be done simultaneously (Condorcet) not sequentially (IRV) to be fair.

Implementing Condorcet would encourage third party involvement. We need more voices in government, not fewer. After all, two choices is only one more than they had in communist Russia, and both options of the "Duopoly" gravitate toward the middle to get votes. That's not real choice! If you look at voter turnout in presidential races from 1960 on, it was a steady downward decline...with one exception: 1992. What happened in 1992? Ross Perot ran a strong third party campaign. It's clear that people want choice in politics.

Vote third party. Vote your conscience regardless of what the pundits and "strategists" say. The only strategy you should need in the booth is honesty to your ideals! The only way we're likely to see voting reform is if we get a third party into office, but we're going to have to do it with the current broken system.

I'm impressed that she's savvy enough to be aware of alternate voting systems, even if she favors IRV. I wonder if she's aware of some of the problems with IRV, and what she thinks of other methods.

I'm impressed that she's savvy enough to be aware of alternate voting systems, even if she favors IRV. I wonder if she's aware of some of the problems with IRV, and what she thinks of other methods.

Concorcet's method is much better than Instant run off.

And her preference for editing is the same as mine... exactly. :)

-Craig.

I would think more geeks would be pushing to overhaul our voting method. The gross inaccuracy and bias of our current system (the plurality vote) ought to insult the sensibilities of any self-respecting techie. Better alternatives (Condorcet, Borda, Approval, IRV) are available.

Agreed. That is the cheaper (and probably more sensible in the first place) alternative. I was saying that if we have to have e-voting, then they must provide a paper backup. But you're right, it would be easier and cheaper to just have scantron-able paper in the first place. You can use them like paper ballots for manual recounts, or you can run them through the machine to get done faster.

The problem is this assumes we keep the current single vote plurality system. I'm an advocate of voting reform (Condorcet's method, baby!) and I don't know if "fill in the bubble" would work there. Needing X bubbles besides each of the X candidates' names so that you can rank them all would be a little tedious. But if handwriting recognition is good enough to get most checks read correctly, it ought to be good enough here.

Yes, proprietary black-box voting equipment is a terrible idea. But what are you going to do about it?

What did Linus Torvalds do about Microsoft? He didn't sit around and complain, he wrote free software to compete with them.

Well, I can't compare myself to Linus, but I did develop a free GUI for voting, and I spent enough time to jeopardize my marriage doing it.

I call it the Graphical Voter Interface or GVI. I gave it a GPL license, and I urge you to check it out. It is full-featured, and I think you will be impressed.

GVI itself is actually a fairly complete voting GUI, but it needs additional components to become part of a complete open-source, free voting system. The documentation that comes with it explains what else is needed, and I wish some of you free-software guys would get to work on them.

Trust me, your arguments against closed-source, proprietary voting systems will be much more credible if you can offer a free, open-source alternative. So get your butts in gear!