Is Instant Run-Off Voting for St. Paul?

What? Does Dennie Montgomery think her constituents are stupid?  You would think she would have a higher opinion of the people who voted her into office.

IRV would not be hard for people to understand, for gods sakes the Irish do it.  :)

Why not a larger debate? I strongly agree that IRV is a better system.  It can be summed up simply: under winner-take-all, everyone you don’t vote for fails equally.  The current system does not capture your preference among the others.  IRV goes one step further and allows you to rank as many as you’d wish by order of preference.  So it’s a more accurate means of sampling actual political inclinations.

However, IRV is not optimal.  Under IRV, the distance between your preferences is artifically equalized, some are raised, some are lowered.  If you felt very strongly about X, but Y and Z were equal seconds (10:7:7), you couldn’t vote that way under IRV.  Y would be inflated over Z to the same extent that X would be over Y (X->Y->Z).  Also, if you felt strongly about X, but Y and Z were somewhat distant alternatives (10:4:2), IRV would not capture that (the same: X->Y->Z).  In a nutshell, IRV collapses in a three-way to 99%:66%:33% if you analyze it this way (rounding off, to give equal distances).  So in the first example, IRV deflated both your second and third choices.  In the second example, it raised them.  This is not an issue of strategic, tactical or gaming voting.  It’s an artifact of the tabulation method, which is not optimal.  I don’t think this is rocket science, and it’s patronizing to the voting bloc to suggest they couldn’t understand this:

“On a scale of 1-10 (10 being the highest), independently score as many candidates as you wish.  Ties are allowed.  Not scoring is the same as giving him/her a 0.  The candidate with the most points after the election wins.”

Why can’t we have a genuine public debate on this?  How’d we go straight to IRV, without really a wide discussion?  This is important stuff, perhaps more important than any other issue, since the quality of our democracy itself relies on it.  Anyone who advocates for an alternative voting system should first advocate for a wide public debate.

http://paulbramscher.blogspot.com/2007/03/home-home-on-range.html

Debbie Debbie Montgomery’s concern was especially for people who don’t speak English and are new to the US voting system over all. Her ward currently has the lowest voter turnout, I think it’s easy to see that she might be concerned that any chance could have a potential negative impact on voter turnout which is already hurting. Voting materials would have be translated into a lot of languages to reach all Ward 1 voters.

Opportunity What has she done to increase turnout of her ward in the past?  I can’t think of anything.

This IRV initiative can be seen as an opportunity to make outreach to voters, and explain to them that this system will be a way to give their voice more power, instead she resists the effort and throws unjustified confusion in the mix and alludes her ward is not smart enough to figure it out.

Studies show.. IRV = Easy Studies show that the majority of SF voters – of all languages and ethnic communities

Linky? Do you have links to the studies?

And what do you think about the issues with the School Board?

Link to my reference Sorry Sara!  Here’s a link to the report supporting my claims:
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/rcv_final_report.pdf

Per school board.  My sense is that if the city council votes to put referendum on ballot (thus keeping control of the timeline) there should be time to resolve school board issues appropriately before implementation.

I do not believe the Better Ballot Campaign has taken a formal position on this, tho.

What? Does Dennie Montgomery think her constituents are stupid?  You would think she would have a higher opinion of the people who voted her into office.

IRV would not be hard for people to understand, for gods sakes the Irish do it.  :)

Why not a larger debate? I strongly agree that IRV is a better system.  It can be summed up simply: under winner-take-all, everyone you don't vote for fails equally.  The current system does not capture your preference among the others.  IRV goes one step further and allows you to rank as many as you'd wish by order of preference.  So it's a more accurate means of sampling actual political inclinations.

However, IRV is not optimal.  Under IRV, the distance between your preferences is artifically equalized, some are raised, some are lowered.  If you felt very strongly about X, but Y and Z were equal seconds (10:7:7), you couldn't vote that way under IRV.  Y would be inflated over Z to the same extent that X would be over Y (X->Y->Z).  Also, if you felt strongly about X, but Y and Z were somewhat distant alternatives (10:4:2), IRV would not capture that (the same: X->Y->Z).  In a nutshell, IRV collapses in a three-way to 99%:66%:33% if you analyze it this way (rounding off, to give equal distances).  So in the first example, IRV deflated both your second and third choices.  In the second example, it raised them.  This is not an issue of strategic, tactical or gaming voting.  It's an artifact of the tabulation method, which is not optimal.  I don't think this is rocket science, and it's patronizing to the voting bloc to suggest they couldn't understand this:

“On a scale of 1-10 (10 being the highest), independently score as many candidates as you wish.  Ties are allowed.  Not scoring is the same as giving him/her a 0.  The candidate with the most points after the election wins.”

Why can't we have a genuine public debate on this?  How'd we go straight to IRV, without really a wide discussion?  This is important stuff, perhaps more important than any other issue, since the quality of our democracy itself relies on it.  Anyone who advocates for an alternative voting system should first advocate for a wide public debate.

http://paulbramscher.blogspot.com/2007/03/home-home-on-range.html

Debbie Debbie Montgomery's concern was especially for people who don't speak English and are new to the US voting system over all. Her ward currently has the lowest voter turnout, I think it's easy to see that she might be concerned that any chance could have a potential negative impact on voter turnout which is already hurting. Voting materials would have be translated into a lot of languages to reach all Ward 1 voters.

Opportunity What has she done to increase turnout of her ward in the past?  I can't think of anything.

This IRV initiative can be seen as an opportunity to make outreach to voters, and explain to them that this system will be a way to give their voice more power, instead she resists the effort and throws unjustified confusion in the mix and alludes her ward is not smart enough to figure it out.

Studies show.. IRV = Easy Studies show that the majority of SF voters – of all languages and ethnic communities

Linky? Do you have links to the studies?

And what do you think about the issues with the School Board?

Link to my reference Sorry Sara!  Here's a link to the report supporting my claims:

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/voting_systems/rcv_final_report.pdf

Per school board.  My sense is that if the city council votes to put referendum on ballot (thus keeping control of the timeline) there should be time to resolve school board issues appropriately before implementation.

I do not believe the Better Ballot Campaign has taken a formal position on this, tho.