Speaking of Instant Runoff Voting…
Who is it who actually “ranks” their choices, anyway? Maybe my point of view is skewed because I am a guy who has – and my social circle is a lot of politically-aware people who also have – strong opinions who know who they’re voting for and why, but I can’t remember a single election where I had a second choice for any office.
I went back through the last several key, contested elections, and entered “ranked choices” for each race.
Saint Paul Mayoral Election, 2009
First Choice: Eva Ng
Second Choice: My dog, Clu.
Third Choice: A jab in the eye with a sharp stick.
Minnesota US Senate Race, 2008
First Choice: Norm Coleman
Second Choice: My cat, Nosemarie.
Third Choice: Getting ripped apart by mice.
Minnesota Fourth District Congressional Race, 2008
First Choice: Ed Matthews
Second Choice: Being forced to sit in booth at Denny’s listening to Ken Weiner, Bill Pendergast and Eva Young frothing about Michele Bachmann for all eternity..
Third Choice: A “Spongebob Squarepants” marathon.
Minnesota Gubernatorial Race, 2006
First Choice: Tim Pawlenty
Second Choice: My other cat, Candy.
Third Choice: Gouging out my own eyes with a spork. (This was almost a tie for third, by the way; Candy has this habit of biting my nose at 4AM that has her on my schvitz list today).
Minnesota Fourth District Congressional Race, 2006
First Choice: Obi Sium
Second Choice: Drinking a fifth of my own fermented sweat .
Third Choice: Going to “Drinking Liberally” and drinking heavily.
Fourth Choice: Gargling with Drano
Fifth Choice: Going to “Drinking Liberally” and not being allowed to drink at all.
Sixth Choice: Any cast member from “The Hills”.
Seventh Choice: Betty McCollum.
US Presidential Race, 2004
First Choice: George W. Bush
Second Choice: Brussels Sprouts
Third Choice: Any random western European leader...
US Senate Race, 2002
First Choice: Norm Coleman
Second Choice: One of those gas-station burritos, after it’s been sitting on my car seat on a hot day.
Third Choice: Rick Kahn’s speech, on eternal loop, forever.
US Presidential Race, 2000
First Choice: Steve Forbes
Second Choice: Jack Kemp.
Third Choice: Steve Forbes.
Now, like most people, I do believe most people are like me. Or, rather, that most people who should be allowed to vote are like me.
Oh, that sounded so intolerant; what I mean is that I suspect most people who actually care enough about politics to care about their voting system at all, really don’t go into the polling place with any sort of “second choice” in mind. We go into the polls wanting victory for the candidate who represents our beliefs the closest, and not a lot more.
Who actually has some notion of “ranking” choices in elections? I’m curious.
The only reason you ranked Betty as high as your 7th choice is because deep down inside, you felt something when she referred to you as an “angry teabagger”.
SpongeBob mini-marathon tonight from 4pm-7pm before premier of star-studded “Truth or Square” special. Definitely a better choice than ever voting for Betty.
Being forced to sit in booth at Denny’s listening to Ken Weiner, Bill Pendergast and Eva Young frothing about Michele Bachmann for all eternity..
You must ***really*** hate SpongeBob to make that your second choice. Because there’s no doubt that Weiner, Bill and Eva could that.
“Or, rather, that most people who should be allowed to vote are like me.”
Should be allowed to vote…
Let’s see, this coming from someone who otherwise complains about how liberals are sneeringly condescending, and pretend to ‘know what’s best’ for others…
Ok – seriously, your opposition is doubtless simply from the fact that you know Repubs will win fewer elections if we don’t allow pluralities for victory –
It may not be, but since you decided to accuse the left of ‘trying to hide their real intentions in their well-oiled campaign’ or some other schlock – I feel ok making the above equally stupid accusation. Except – perhaps mine strikes a little closer to home than did yours.
Lordy, build some more strawmen and knock them down please.
Ok, seriously seriously, voters run the gammout of education and voting sohpistication – that doesn’t mean we have to create every ballot simply for the lowest common denominator. Florida 2000 proved pretty conclusively that even simple ballots can have issues – so I’m sorry, but I don’t buy that we can either create a ballot which will have zero (or close to zero) problems or that we are consigned to never trying something a bit more involved simply because some voters won’t “get it.” It is rather amusing that conservatives talk about the independent spirit and respecting individual abilities, yet use the ‘stupidity’ of the average person as an excuse to NOT do something to prevent someone whom the majority of voters don’t prefer, from winning elections when a solution is frankly both do-able and work-able – not perfect, but good enough.
More to the point then, what standard of accuracy are you requiring for it to be good enough? I would say that if 99% of the ballots are acceptible and correctly reflect the voter’s intent – then that’s good enough. Exit polling or wore, other polling where the voter may have been selectively chosen is nothnig more than inaccurate anecdote – and frankly, if they feel that way by such a WIDE MARGIN – they certainly have the option to do away with the process don’t they, and seemingly, if the voters hate it so much, they will. Why would you rather not let them (and us) make that decision themselves by vote, rather than assuming that is their decision by a poll? But the bottom line still is, if this voting method accurately reflects the VAST majority (99%) of voters intentions, then the wit and wisdom of the voter is not, and should never be, a limit on being allowed to vote in a more effective way that better captures the voter intent.
It would make great sense in the nominating process, primary process.
first choice – sarah
second choice – huckabee
third choice – romney
fourth choice – pretty much anybody except mccain
fifth choice – mccain
Save a lot of ballots
Mitch, check up on AC, willya? I haven’t seen his posts here in ages and I’m worried about him.
He might be completely wrong in all his politics – but he’s a far better insulter than Flash or Peeve or whomever else is trolling you lately.
Come now, Mitch. I think you’d have a good time at DL. Bring up an entertainment topic, and you’ll hardly hear any politics.
Lordy, build some more strawmen and knock them down please.
It’s awfully tough for Mitch to build strawmen when you’re hoarding all the straw, Peev.
Should be allowed to vote…
Let’s see, this coming from someone who otherwise complains about how liberals are sneeringly condescending, and pretend to ‘know what’s best’ for others…
{{facepalm}}
Pen, I gotta…Um…er…
{{Another facepalm}}
Criminy. I’ve seen “Manufactured Indignation”, and “mangling of context” before, but Pen, for crying out loud, in the very next sentence, I trumpet the hyperbolic, comedic intent of the bit you pulled out of context: “Oh, that sounded so intolerant; what I mean is that…”. I mean, do I need to put one of Matt Drudge’s sirens in the post to indicate it’s “hyperbole for comedic effect?” Or perhaps put entire thoughts in a different color so you know the intended context.
And in conclusion…
{{{facepalm}}}
Ok – seriously, your opposition is doubtless simply from the fact that you know Repubs will win fewer elections if we don’t allow pluralities for victory –
Um, no. I mean, there’s a reason that the bipartisan detractors (I(I mean, for crying out loud, what else could get Chuck Repke and I into the same room together – capisce?) call it “Incumbent Retention Voting”. In loony bins like Minneapolis, yes – it’ll keep Democrats in power. In sane cities like Fargo and San Antonio, it’ll cement Republican majorities.
It may not be, but since you decided to accuse the left of ‘trying to hide their real intentions in their well-oiled campaign’ or some other schlock – I feel ok making the above equally stupid accusation. Except – perhaps mine strikes a little closer to home than did yours.
Well, no. Yours is made up from whole cloth, whereas mine is actually based on fact.
Look – when the local IRV lobbyists and hucksters laboriously conceal from voters that IRV was going down to defeat in one of the cities that’d been touted as one of IRV’s big “Success Stories” – Tacoma – and that even people in that Republican stronghold San Freaking Francisco are complaining that the only way you get a genuine majority is by tossing out lots of ballots, and that positions have been filled by IRV elections with as little as 35% “majorities”, then you know there’s a problem.
Lordy, build some more strawmen and knock them down please.
Project much?
Ok, seriously seriously, voters run the gammout of education and voting sohpistication – that doesn’t mean we have to create every ballot simply for the lowest common denominator.
And now we’re getting out of politics, and into the stuff I do for an utterly non-partisan living.
Designing for usability is not designing “for the lowest common denominator”. Although I’m glad to see project managers saying that it is; it guarantees me decades of profitable work fixing badly-designed software. 🙂
Florida 2000 proved pretty conclusively that even simple ballots can have issues
Really, Pen? It “proved” this “conclusively”?
You have the “conclusive proof” documented anywhere?
Because the Broward County Butterfly Ballot may have been the most instantly-famous case study, and usability class project, in the history of the discipline (including in the class I taught at Metro State at the time). It may have been “simple” – for you, Pen, blog commenter extraordinaire. But usability testing and analysis flushes out problems that you can’t even imagine -and we saw them all on display with the Broward Butterfly.
– so I’m sorry, but I don’t buy that we can either create a ballot which will have zero (or close to zero) problems
That’s a bit of a strawman – “zero” is impossible. But if you have a system or process where nobody has even tried to flush out unanticipated usability issues, don’t come crying to me when people start coming up with…unanticipated usability issues!
or that we are consigned to never trying something a bit more involved simply because some voters won’t “get it.”
So what level of voter disenfranchisement DO you find acceptab.e?
It is rather amusing that conservatives talk about the independent spirit and respecting individual abilities, yet use the ’stupidity’
BZZZZZT! Wrong!
If I’m running a usability test, and a user has problems figuring something out, and some developer or BA or PM chuckles and calls them “stupid”, I give ’em a subtle chewing-out. There is nothing ‘stupid” about having trouble with badly-designed systems.
And when our democracy is at stake, why do people like you find good design – which is utterly non-partisan – so threatening?
Oh, I think I know. Confusion and disinformation benefit the Dems. Every time.
It’s clear to everyone who has looked at the issue that single member district plurality voting can sometimes yield results that can be portrayed as “unfair”, in that they can result in the elections of individuals who were not supported by a majority of the voters.
What’s not clear to most, though is is true, is that every possible voting system has this problem. So the argument that first-past-the-post should be replaced because it is sometimes unfair is hogwash. Every voting system – including instant runoff – is sometimes unfair.
The worst possible result would be that the slate of candidates becomes so crowded that the most name-recognized person wins because he’s the only one that uninformed voters ever heard of.
Jesse The Body, Rod Grams, Amy Klobuchar, Chris Coleman, Mark Dayton.
.
“I can’t remember a single election where I had a second choice for any office.”
Each to his/her own; I can’t remember a race with more than two candidates where I haven’t had strong opinion as to who I’d rather have if my preferred candidate didn’t win.
Looking back on the last three goober races — where my preferred candidate won (yup; while I didn’t vote for him, I did want Ventura to win) — if I couldn’t have had my choice, I’d rather have had the non-DFLer in two out of three, and Hatch in the last.
That said, a non-IRV system does tend to discourage serious independent and third-party candidates; when they do run, they’re usually (just about always, with some notable exceptions) running to make a political point, not to get into office. (And I’m not sure that Ventura was an exception; looking back, I don’t think he really expected to win.)
But, sure, IRV is imperfect. I think it’s better than the plurality-sweeps system, but …
Joel – let’s carry the IRV idea forward.
If we had an election today, and the issue on the ballot were “which balloting/counting system should we use”, my choices would be…:
1. Plurality Sweeps. If it ain’t broke (IMO)…
2. Proportional Representation (for deliberative bodies). I mean, if you’re going to institute a needlessly complex system to replace Plurality, why not use one that’ll actually foster more participation and representation, rather than simply consolidate power with incumbents?
3. Republican armed coup – peaceful, if possible.
4. IRV.
I’m joking about 3, naturally. I have to make sure I specify that, it seems.
As to 3, apparently. Me, I actually do get those sorts of jokes, even though I don’t use them, as I hate explaining jokes.
Moving on . . . IRV in St. Paul is now a done deal. If there is a reservoir of dissatisfaction with the DFL monopoly on elective office — which is, from this remove, worse than it seems; looks to me like it’s not merely a DFL monopoly, but largely a DFL-inner-circle one — can you see any way that the new voting system can be used as a tool to turn that dissatisfaction into elective office for non-DFL-insiders?
I’ll have to look into it. For starters, I have to see if Saint Paul has a two-term limit.
If so, there’s possibilities here.