Committee meetings re CO Voter Choice Act Apr 25 and 26
Jan Kok
committees today and maybe tomorrow. These meetings can be heard via
streaming audio with Windows Media Player. See
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2007a/cslFrontPages.nsf/Audio?OpenForm
Apr 25 12:00 p.m. (Mountain Time)
Room 0112 Legislative Council Committee
--Review and Prioritization of Interim Study Committee Proposals
Thursday, April 26
7:30 a.m.
Room LSB-A Appropriations
HB 1062 Solano--Early Childhood Councils
HB 1144 McFadyen and Carroll T.--Colorado False Claims Act
HB 1162 Kefalas--Advanced Voting Methods Pilot & Study
Enjoy!
- Jan
Jan Kok
Committee today, so it seems the last chance for funding is with the
House Appropriations Committee tomorrow.
There is committee member info below, for those who may wish to call
or write to the members.
The Appropriations Committee meeting can be heard via
streaming audio with Windows Media Player. See
http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2007a/cslFrontPages.nsf/Audio?OpenForm
> Thursday, April 26
> 7:30 a.m.
> Room LSB-A Appropriations
> HB 1062 Solano--Early Childhood Councils
> HB 1144 McFadyen and Carroll T.--Colorado False Claims Act
> HB 1162 Kefalas--Advanced Voting Methods Pilot & Study
Cheers,
- Jan
House Appropriations Committee members:
Bernie Buescher, Chairman; Cap: 303-866-2583
E-mail: ber...@buescher.org
Jack Pommer, Vice-Chairman; Cap: 303-866-2780
E-mail: jack.pom...@state.co.us
Dorothy B. Butcher, Cap: 303-866-2968
Michael Garcia, Cap: 303-866-3911
E-mail: mic...@michaelgarcia.info
Joel Judd, Cap: 303-866-2925
E-mail: joel...@aol.com
James E. "Jim" Kerr, Cap: 303-866-2939
E-mail: james.ke...@state.co.us
Tom Massey, Cap: 303-866-2747
E-mail: tom.mass...@state.co.us
Anne L. McGihon, Cap: 303-866-2921
E-mail: anne.mcgi...@state.co.us
Frank McNulty, Cap: 303-866-2936
Jim Riesberg, Cap: 303-866-2929
E-mail: jim.riesb...@state.co.us
Glen Vaad, Cap: 303-866-2943
E-mail: glenn.va...@state.co.us
Paul Weissmann, Cap: 303-866-2920
E-mail: rep...@aol.com
Al White, Cap: 303-866-2949
E-mail: al.whit...@state.co.us
Bruce Meyer
Hopefully we can pass ranked choice in Denver this November (or through city council) for implementation in 2011.
anyone know how either of the city clerk candidates feel about ranked choice?
bruce
--
Smile and Dance!
Jan Kok
indefinitely - effectively killed) by the Appropriations Committee by
a 10-2 vote. Another bill which needed only $641 was also PI'd.
Ok, folks, let's move on. There is nothing to prevent those of us who
have an interest to do our own research, draft one or more bills
ourselves, find bill sponsors (John Kefalas is still interested), and
submit our bills and recommendations to the 2008 Assembly.
How to proceed?
I hope some of you will take an interest in the the Nov 2008 elections
- especially the presidential election. There is always the
possibility of "spoiler" candidates in these races, that would result
in a "wrong winner" being chosen. Note, for example, that presidential
hopefuls Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and Ron Paul (R-TX) are unlikely to be
nominated by their parties, but could attract substantial votes if
they ran as independent or third party candidates. I think most people
on this list can imagine vividly what would happen in such a scenario.
We need look no farther than Nader's 2000 and 2004 campaigns...
In any case, the affected major party would hate having a potential
spoiler in the race. So, before we know who might emerge as a spoiler,
we have a chance to sell both major parties on the idea that maybe it
would be better if we fixed our election system so that we don't have
those perverse "spoiler" and other problems, and the truly
most-preferred candidate can win.
I'm proposing that we concentrate our efforts on the November 2008
election - the state and federal offices, including the presidential
election. I think that's a much bigger, more immediate, more
worthwhile, and perhaps more achievable prize than the 2011 Denver
municipal elections.
Furthermore, I propose that we focus on promoting Approval Voting
(although I'm not sure we should call it that) for the 2008 election.
Here's why:
* I think the main reason the Voter Choice Act was killed was just
lack of money. I listened to both committee meetings over the
internet, and I didn't hear anything that made me think otherwise. IRV
requires upgrades to voting equipment, and AV does not. Which method
has the better chance of being adopted?!
* Most voting machine vendors will not have IRV upgrades ready to use
(let alone certified) by Nov 2008. On the other hand... (have I
mentioned?)... AV works on any existing voting machines, no upgrades
needed. The proof of that is the widespread use of "Vote for N"
elections, such as the "Vote for two" election for the two at-large
seats on Denver's city council, or the statewide "Vote for two"
election for the two at-large seats on the CU Board of Regents.
* AV is much simpler than IRV. That means it's easier for people to
understand, it takes less language to describe it (e.g. an AV bill
would be considerably shorter than an IRV bill), it's easier to
educate voters and elections staff, etc.
* AV elections are easily auditable by anyone. Just add up the votes
from each precinct or voting center. Precincts can post their vote
counts for each candidate on election night as they do now. IRV
elections are more difficult to audit. It's not sufficient to post
just the first choice vote counts (what if no candidate gets a
majority in the first round?)
* AV requires no change to the ballots, other than changing the
instructions from "Vote for one" to "Vote for one or more." And voters
who are satisfied with voting for the Democrat or the Republican can
vote as they always have. No one is inconvenienced by the change to
AV. AV simply gives a little more freedom to those voters who want it.
(Note that in a situation like Florida 2000, both Gore and Nader, and
their supporters - a majority! - would have wanted AV.)
On the other hand, IRV requires a different and relatively unfamiliar
form of ballot. Some people just don't want to vote for more than one
candidate, and they don't want to deal with any added complications.
IRV takes more ballot space, which could be a problem on Colorado's
already large, crowded ballots.
* AV has the appearance - and is in fact - a very small change to the
present system. We could, if we wish, make that change seem even
smaller by changing we way that we market it. Instead of saying "We
want to change the voting method to Approval Voting," we can say "We
want to make one small change to the voting rules [namely, repeal the
'no overvoting' rule] in order to fix several problems with the
current system. The change would insure that the most-preferred
candidate wins, get rid of the spoiler effect, allow voters who prefer
minor party candidates to vote for them without worrying that doing so
would cause their least-favorite candidate to win, etc." (I'm curious
what people think about this alternative marketing approach.)
Would getting AV adopted for the 2008 elections make it harder to
adopt IRV later on? I don't know, but here are some thoughts about
that:
If AV turns out to be popular with most people, then there might be
little incentive to make further changes. But if AV really does turn
out to work well, then why worry about it? Why would you want to go to
the trouble of changing the voting method _again_? OK, I hear some of
the IRV supporters thinking, "The good (AV) is the enemy of the better
(IRV)." To which I reply: many IRV supporters also have a longer-term
goal of moving to Proportional Representation (PR). If IRV turns out
to be popular, might that make it harder to move to PR?
One might make the "stepping stone" argument: IRV can serve as a
stepping stone to STV-PR, by getting voters used to voting on ranked
ballots, etc. Well then, AV can serve as a stepping stone to other
voting methods, including IRV. It gets legislators and the public used
to the idea of making changes to our voting method. Promoting AV would
give all of us would-be voting reformers and lobbyists some valuable
experience. And most of the research needed to write an AV bill should
apply to an IRV bill.
(By the way, those whose ultimate goal is PR should be aware that IRV
is not the only stepping stone to PR. Indeed, Range Voting ballots can
be used to drive an STV-PR election, so RV could be a stepping stone
to STV-PR. There is also a PR version of Range Voting, which is
simpler and in some ways better than STV-PR. In addition, there is a
PR method called Asset Voting that can use Range Voting balots, AV
ballots, or even Plurality ballots!)
Imagine what it would be like to have AV for the 2008 presidential
election in Colorado. Minor party voters would be completely free to
vote for their favorite candidate, and would still be able to vote for
their preferred major party candidate. Thus, minor party candidates
would get much better vote results in Colorado than in other states.
Knowing that, those minor party candidates might choose to spend a
large fraction of their campaign time in Colorado, in order to build
up their standing in the pre-election polls. Wouldn't that be
exciting, to have so much attention from minor party canddiates?! I
think it would be a blast! :-)
My fellow voting reformers, please join me in working for AV in 2008.
I welcome your feedback.
Cheers,
- Jan
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
>As Bruce Meyer has noted, the Voter Choice Act was PI'd (postponed
>indefinitely - effectively killed) by the Appropriations Committee by
>a 10-2 vote. Another bill which needed only $641 was also PI'd.
Now, the question. Why? I would suggest that Colorado members of this
list actively query all those who voted to postpone indefinitely the
motion why they did so. If we knew, more than speculating about it,
we might know better the next steps to take and we might be better
able to anticipate opposition.
>* AV has the appearance - and is in fact - a very small change to the
>present system. We could, if we wish, make that change seem even
>smaller by changing we way that we market it. Instead of saying "We
>want to change the voting method to Approval Voting," we can say "We
>want to make one small change to the voting rules [namely, repeal the
>'no overvoting' rule] in order to fix several problems with the
>current system. The change would insure that the most-preferred
>candidate wins, get rid of the spoiler effect, allow voters who prefer
>minor party candidates to vote for them without worrying that doing so
>would cause their least-favorite candidate to win, etc." (I'm curious
>what people think about this alternative marketing approach.)
Of course that is how we should market it.
Count All the Votes.
And we can note that if all the votes had been counted in Florida
2000, the outcome would have significantly changed for the whole
nation. And the winner of the national election would have matched
the actual preferences of the voters, overall. Overvoting problems
were used in Florida to disqualify many ballots. The assumption seems
to be that overvoted ballots must represent mistakes. Robert's Rules
gives that as the reason for discarding overvoted ballots. It's
circular. It is a mistake because it is prohibited and it is
prohibited because it must be a mistake.
I have never seen a cogent argument against counting all the votes.
It is what happens in face-to-face elections by show of hands. I have
never seen anyone object "But you also raised your hand for another
candidate!" The only argument that makes any sense on the face is the
one-person, one-vote argument, and that is clearly a
misunderstanding, Approval Voting does not give anyone more than one
vote per candidate, which is what counts. It does not give voters who
vote for more than one any unfair advantage. (If it did, the same
objection would apply to IRV! But it doesn't.)
>If AV turns out to be popular with most people, then there might be
>little incentive to make further changes. But if AV really does turn
>out to work well, then why worry about it? Why would you want to go to
>the trouble of changing the voting method _again_? OK, I hear some of
>the IRV supporters thinking, "The good (AV) is the enemy of the better
>(IRV)."
I doubt that this effect will stop further reform. Once there is AV,
there is going to be dissatisfaction with it, and, in fact, there are
further reforms that are small incremental steps. Voters will want to
be able to specify which of two candidates that they approve is their
favorite, and there are very good reasons for collecting this
information, and, indeed, I personally suggest, as soon as
reasonable, adding a preference option, that is not necessarily used
to determine the winner. But it could be. And there are two basic
ways that it could be. One is to consider the ballot a ranked one,
and the other is to consider it a rating ballot.
And we don't need to decide which fork we take now. It starts with
allowing voters to vote for more than one without having their
opinion discarded. That is simple, and that is all. "the good is the
enemy of the best is an argument that in the past has resulted, for
example, in the election of Adolf Hitler, because voters withheld
their votes for a compromise candidate because they thought another
candidate was better." It is a dangerous principle, and it is
probably untrue, unless the good somehow literally and forever blocks
further progress toward the best.
>One might make the "stepping stone" argument: IRV can serve as a
>stepping stone to STV-PR, by getting voters used to voting on ranked
>ballots, etc. Well then, AV can serve as a stepping stone to other
>voting methods, including IRV. It gets legislators and the public used
>to the idea of making changes to our voting method. Promoting AV would
>give all of us would-be voting reformers and lobbyists some valuable
>experience. And most of the research needed to write an AV bill should
>apply to an IRV bill.
Voters, I predict, will want more flexibility, once they see Approval
in action. And then there are two paths to take. I suspect that what
might happen is that experiments might be performed using rating
ballots with an approval cutoff specified. These can be counted as
Approval, so they do not change results; however, they can be used to
study how further reform would affect election performance. And those
ballots can be analyzed as Range ballots or as ranked choice ballots
(but equal ranking must be allowed; this would mean that any stage in
an IRV election would be, as it were, an approval election. Which is
probably a better way of running IRV anyway.)
>(By the way, those whose ultimate goal is PR should be aware that IRV
>is not the only stepping stone to PR. Indeed, Range Voting ballots can
>be used to drive an STV-PR election, so RV could be a stepping stone
>to STV-PR. There is also a PR version of Range Voting, which is
>simpler and in some ways better than STV-PR. In addition, there is a
>PR method called Asset Voting that can use Range Voting balots, AV
>ballots, or even Plurality ballots!)
...
>My fellow voting reformers, please join me in working for AV in 2008.
We can argue later about what method is superior. I think that there
are very few people knowledgeable about election methods who think
FPFP (Plurality) is better than Approval. Most of us also would agree
that IRV is better than FPTP, but the majority of election methods
experts are wary of IRV. Given the simplicity of Approval, the reform
is basically cost-free, it would seem, indeed, to be an obvious first
step, solving the first-order spoiler effect, allowing third parties
their fair share of the vote without damaging top-two candidates. And
Colorado would be leading the nation in this.
Voters -- and IRV supporters -- will be dissatisfied with being
unable to rank approved candidates, I predict. So there will still be
pressure for further reform. Certainly Approval would not *block*
IRV. But some IRV implementations specifically toss out overvotes,
invalidating that stage and all lower stages for those ballots, if I
am correct. Really, that's a defect in the IRV implementations, not a
defect in IRV itself, and IRV methods can be run as Approval
elections at each stage. The details of how to do so and the
implications, I'll spare you all today.
John Kefalas
You may not have received the e-mail from Eric Fried that I asked him to
send on Thursday night but despite the fact HB-1162 was PI'd, the Speaker
has committed to helping make our study group happen through his authority
and resources. I will let everyone know once something is definitive.
John