Results from Occupy Wall Street voting methods study

[Clay Shentrup]

	Plurality	Approval	Score	IRV 1	IRV 2	IRV 3
Obama	85%	89.9%	86.3%	83.8%	8.4%	2.4%
Stein	3.2%	51.9%	53.9%	3.9%	47.9%	23%
Lindsay	0.99%	31.2%	42.5%	0.99%	12.3%	34.8%
Johnson	1.8%	26.8%	38.9%	1.4%	15%	24%
Goode	0.4%	16.6%	33.5%	1.2%	7.2%	12.2%
Romney	8.3%	13%	24.9%	8.5%	7.2%	1.7%
Write-in	0.4%	2.2%	1.7%	0.2%	2%	2%

Third parties..do you really prefer IRV to Score and Approval?

[Eric Sanders]

Here's the full text of the e-mail I received:

Hello, 
   This weekend, the Politics and Electoral Reform working group of Occupy Wall Street will be presenting the results of its experimental alternative voting method survey (conducted on election day 2012) at the New School Political Science Department's conference on Radical Democracy, Saturday March 16th.  Please see the press release below on the topline results of the election day data collection drive.  
  best,
  PAER

----------

MAKE VOTING COUNT: AN EXPERIMENT IN ALTERNATIVE VOTING METHODS

On Election Day, November 6th, 2012, the Politics and Electoral Reform Working Group of Occupy Wall Street conducted an experimental survey in New York City to investigate how voters behave under four different voting methods. Using a custom built electronic platform each participant answered the same ballot-style question under plurality voting (the traditional method), approval voting, score voting and ranked choice voting.  For more information on the project, including past reports, please visit our website at paercom.net, or contact us at pae...@gmail.com.

For the test, we reproduced the presidential portion of the New York State ballot, which included six candidates for the office: Democrat Barack Obama, Republican Mitt Romney, Green Party candidate Jill Stein, Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, Socialism and Liberation Party candidate Peta Lindsay, and Constitution Party candidate Virgil Goode. There was also a write-in option under each of the four methods. Over the course of the day, our survey teams collected 507 valid responses to our test from voters as they exited their polling places.

The survey was conducted in Manhattan's 69th Assembly District, which stretches from 80rd Street to 125th Street on the west side. Among all of the state assembly districts in Manhattan, the demographic breakdown of the 69th district most closely approximates that of the country at large. Over the course of the day, nearly twenty volunteers working in teams of two canvassed voters as they left polling places throughout the district.

Plurality Voting Results

Under plurality voting, which is the traditional method employed in the United States, each voter casts a ballot for one and only one candidate, and the candidate with the most votes wins. Though the New York State and City Boards of Elections have not yet released the district tallies from the presidential election, the findings for the plurality portion of our test are consistent with citywide results. In our survey, President Obama came out on top with a total of 431 votes, a full 85% of all valid ballots cast in our poll. He was followed by Mitt Romney, who came in a distant second, with 42 votes, or 8.3% of the total. Jill Stein came in third with 16 votes, 3.2% of the total. Gary Johnson took the fourth place with 9 votes at 1.8%. Next came Peta Lindsay, who had the support of 5 participants in our poll, 0.99% of all valid ballots. Virgil Goode received 2 votes, and Justice Party candidate Rocky Anderson received 1 write-in vote.

Approval Voting Results

Under approval voting, participants indicate whether they approve or disapprove of each candidate, and may approve of multiple candidates. The candidate who receives the most approvals wins. Barack Obama took the first place spot, garnering the approval of 89.9% of all participants. Jill Stein came in second place with approvals from 51.9% of all participants. She was followed by Peta Lindsay, who received a 31.2% approval rating. Gary Johnson placed fourth with 26.8% support. Virgil Goode won the approval of 16.6% of those polled; and Mitt Romney came in last among the ballot qualified candidates, with the support of 13% of all participants. Write-in votes accounted for 2.2% of the total.

Score Voting Results

In the score voting method (sometimes called range voting), voters rate each candidate on a given scale and the candidate who receives the most cumulative points wins. In our experiment, the scale was from 0 to 5, with 5 being the most favorable. Given that there were 507 valid responses to our poll, the most points any candidate could have received was 2535. Once again Barack Obama took the first place spot, receiving 2188 points, or 86.3% of the total possible. He was followed, in second place, by Jill Stein with 1367 points, 53.9%. Peta Lindsay came in third with 1076 points, 42.1% of the total. Gary Johnson took fourth place with 987 points, 38.9% of the total. Virgil Goode followed with 33.5% support, and Mitt Romney came in last place among all ballot-qualified candidates with 24.9% support. Write-ins amounted to 1.7%.


Ranked Choice Voting Results

Under ranked choice voting, also known as instant runoff, respondents rank their candidates in their order of preference and the results are calculated as an instant runoff. Our test allowed participants to rank up to three candidates from among those listed, and also provided a write-in option. In our test, the ranked choice method would not have led to an instant runoff as Barack Obama received well over 50% of the top choice votes from all participants. There were 507 individuals who made a first place choice under this method; there were 359 who ranked two choices; and there were 296 who listed three candidates on their ballots. In the first round vote, Barack Obama came in first place with 83.8% support. He was followed by Mitt Romney who garnered 8.5% of the votes. Jill Stein took the third place spot with 3.9% support. Gary Johnson received 1.4% of the first choice votes, Virgil Goode received 1.2% of all first choice votes and Peta Lindsay had the support of 1.2% of participants. The remaining vote was a write-in for Rocky Anderson.

In the second round, Jill Stein led with 172 votes, or 47.9% of all those who listed at least two candidates on their ballot. She was followed by Gary Johnson who came in second with 15%. Peta Lindsay took the third spot with 12.3% support. Barack Obama, who won the top choice vote, was the fourth place candidate in the second round, with 8.4% of those polled. Virgil Goode and Mitt Romney each received 26 second choice votes, 7.2% of the total. The remaining votes were spread out among a number of write-ins.

Overall there were 296 individuals who listed three candidates on their instant runoff ballot. In the third round vote, Peta Lindsay took the top spot with 103 votes, 34.8% of the total. Lindsay was followed by Gary Johnson with 24% support. Jill Stein took fourth place with 23%. She was followed by Virgil Goode who received 12.2% support. Barack Obama received 2.6% of the third round votes and Republican Mitt Romney came in last among ballot qualified candidates with 1.7% support. The remaining votes were spread out over a number of write-in candidates.

[Michael Ossipoff]

 

The table quoted below doesn't say who won in IRV. The Occupy Movement's report says that Obama won in Plurality, Approval, Score, and also in IRV.

 

In other words, the method didn't make any difference. I assume that, unlike the earlier Occup poll on political parties, this more recent candidate poll was conducted among actua members of the geneal public.

 

The results show that more people prefer Obama to Stein than vice-versa--probably because they've never heard of Stein, and have no idea what the GPUS platform offers. People have been conditioned to vote for the Democrat.

 

Of course the hope, if Approval is enacted (somhow) under the existing government, is that that enactment would bring publicity to the variety of parties and alternative platforms, with their very significantly different policy proposals. Then, with Approval, I'd expect different results.

 

As for third parties preferring IRV to Approval and Score, of course they do, and I agree that IRV wouldn't be any good under existing conditions. If we somehow enacted a new voting system under the current Republocrat government, with Approval people could and would be assured that they could always approve their favorite, and evesryone they like better than whatever compromise they think they need. With IRV, which fails FBV, they of course couldn't be assured of that. In fact, the media would do is very best, and would successfully convince progressives that only the Democrat or Republican can win, and that they need to rank the Democrat (alone) in 1st place. So I agree that, for existing conditions, IRV wouldn't be any good. (But I still hope that Maine's IRV bill passes, because anything is worth a try).

 

Five U.S. political parties offer IRV as the voting system in the new government that their platforms propose:

 

Green Party of the U.S. (GPUS)

Vermont Progressive Party

California Peace & Freedom Party

Greens/ Green Party of the USA (G/GPUSA)

Socialist Party of the USA (SPUSA)

 

----------------------

 

They're all progressive parties. No alternative voting systen other than IRV is offered in a political party platform.

 

Though I agree that IRV would probably not be any good for current conditions, due to its FBC failure, that doens't mean that IRV wouldn't be good under different conditions. I've defined the Green scneario in lots of posts here, so I won't define it here. In the Green scenario, IRV is a fine method.   ...as are the other I&c methods. "I&c" stands for IRV&c, or IRV etc. It refers to IRV and various hybrids of IRV, which include:

 

1. Approval IRV (AIRV):

 

IRV, but voters can rank as many candidates to a rank position as they want to. Candidates top-ranked on your each get a whole vote from you. When all of your rank N candidates are eliminated, then each of your rank N+1 candidates gets a whole vote from you.''

 

2. Benham:

 

Do IRV until there's an uneliminated candidate who isn't pairwise-beaten by any uneliminated candidate. Elect hir.

 

3. Woodall:

 

Do IRV until only one member of the initial Smith set remains uneliminated. Elect hir.

 

4. MM//Benham:

 

Choose from the innermost mutual majority (MM) preferred set. Choose by Benham, counting only the ballots of that innermost MM.

 

5. MM//Woodall:

 

Choose from the innermost mutual majority (MM) preferred set. Choose by Woodall, counting only the ballots of that innermost MM.

 

6. Unbeaten//IRV:

 

If there's a candidate with no pairwise defeats, elect hir. If there are several, choose among them by IRV. If there are none, just do IRV.

 

These are the methods that I call IRV etc., IRV&c, or I&c.

 

For the Green scenario, I prefer I&c.

 

But the A&c methods would be fine too, just not quite as deluxe (for MM members). By A&c, I mean Approval&c, or Approval etc.

 

A&c methods include:

 

1. Approval

2. Score

3. Symmetrical ICT

4. ICT (but to a lesser extent--

....plain ICT doesn't pass a LNHe version.

 

Those methods are strategically similar to eachother. Symmetrical ICT is strategically Approval with CD (no chicken dilemma)

 

Anyway, those 5 abovementioned political parties offer IRV. If one of them (say GPUS) wins office and starts its new government, that party might be dis-satisified with IRV, if it eliminates their CW. If that happens, they might side with the non-MM voters, in a majority vote to replace IRV with a method that better elects CWs. That could be Approval, but it's more likely to be Unbeaten//IRV or Benham. Maybe Woodall. Maybe AIRV. 

 

No doubt, in a Green government (where IRV is the default voting system), there'd soon be an initiative or referendum on voting systems. Of course it would be an IRV vote.

 

For that vote, for the voting system for use under Green scenario conditions, I'd rank these voting systems, in this order:

 

1. MM//Benham

2. MM//Woodall

3. AIRV

4. IRV

5. Benham

6. Woodall

7. Unbeaten//IRV

8. Symmetrical ICT

9. ICT

10. Score

11. Approval

 

As I said, Green dis-satisfaction with the elimimination of their CWs would lead to the replacement of IRV with a method that better elects CWs. But maybe the MM would feel that it isn't necessary to let non-MM voters participate in the choice of which MM preferred candidate should win. In that case, IRV, MM//Benham or MM//Woodall would be preferred.  That choice to keep IRV, MM//Benham or MM//Woodall wouldn't be made unless, before it's known which party will have the CW, the MM dedided that it didn't want non-MM voters to partiipate in the choice among the MM-preferred candidates--and then later even the CW-preferrers stayed with and stood by that decisioin.  ...Or else the CW-preferrers actually decided that they only liked their candidate for strategic reasons, and that they therefore didn't care if s/he were the MM-preferred candidate who wins.

 

Michael Ossipoff

[Michael Ossipoff]

The Occupy presidential exit-poll, among the presidential candidates on the N.Y. ballot, accomplishes and shows more than other polls by alternative voting systems, because that poll was purposely conducted among a typical population. As you've probably read in their report, they chose a district with a typical population composition. A good effort was made to use the alternative voting systems among a typical U.S. population.

 

The fact that the Democrat won, by all four voting-systems, reflects the fact that people haven't heard of the alterantives available to them, and have been convinced by the mass media, regarding "The Two Choices". 

 

But the poll shows something important:

 

It confirms what other polls have been showing too--The Republican came in last, as is usual.

 

That fact has great relevance for voting in our current Plurality voting system. If the Greens (GPUS) are more popular than the Republicans, if the Green will outpoll the Republican, then THERE'S NO NEED TO HOLE OUR NOSE AND VOTE FOR THE CORRUPT LESSER-EVIL DEMOCRAT.

 

As I've long been claiming, the constant media claim that the Democrat and the Republican are "The Two Choices" is disinformation. I've been pointing out that the GPUS platform offers what people say they want, and offers to fix the things that everyone is complaining about--such as taxes on the working poor, and a tax system imposed unduly heaviy on the ordinary population, as opposed to the wealthy.

 

The fact that the Republican came in last, in the Occupy presidential poll, among a typical population, further confirms that GPUS can outpoll the Republican, thereby freeing us of any need to hold our nose and vote for the Democrat, whose essentiallly Republican policies we don't really like.

 

As I've said, Plurality's u/a strategy is to combine votes on the most winnable acceptable candidate. For progressives (people who want policies that are more pro-human, humane, ethical--and canddidates who are uncorrupt and more honest), that candidate is obviously the GPUS nominee, in any election.

 

So, I repeat that the replacement of Republocrats with Greens could begin in 2014, and be complete in 2016.

 

So, shall we vote honestly in 2014?

 

Michael Ossipoff