How HB 2518 broke down

[Clay Shentrup]

BILL STATUS VOTES FOR HB2518 - Third Reading Y = Yes  N = No  NV = Not Voting  EXC = Excused  V = Vacant Member Name Vote Member Name Vote Member Name Vote John Allen (R) Y Lela Alston (D) N Brenda Barton (R) Y Sonny Borrelli (R) Y Paul Boyer (R) Y Kate Brophy McGee (R)  Y Chad Campbell (D) N Mark A. Cardenas (D)        N Heather Carter (R) Y Doug Coleman (R) Y Lupe Chavira Contreras (D)  N Andrea Dalessandro (D) N Jeff Dial (R) Y Juan Carlos Escamilla (D) N Karen Fann (R) Y Eddie Farnsworth (R) Y Thomas Forese (R) Y Rosanna Gabaldón (D) N Ruben Gallego (D) NV Sally Ann Gonzales (D) N Doris Goodale (R) Y David M. Gowan Sr. (R)  Y Rick Gray (R) N Albert Hale (D) N Lydia Hernández (D) N John Kavanagh (R) N Adam Kwasman (R) Y Jonathan Larkin (D) N Debbie Lesko (R) Y David Livingston (R) Y Phil Lovas (R) Y Stefanie Mach (D) N Debbie McCune Davis (D)  N Juan Mendez (D) N Javan "J.D." Mesnard (R) Y Eric Meyer (D) NV Catherine H. Miranda (D)  N Darin Mitchell (R) Y Steve Montenegro (R) Y Justin Olson (R) Y Ethan Orr (R) Y Lisa Otondo (D) N Jamescita Peshlakai (D) N Warren Petersen (R) Y Justin Pierce (R) NV Frank Pratt (R) Y Martín J. Quezada (D) N Bob Robson (R) Y Macario Saldate IV (D) N Carl Seel (R) N Andrew Sherwood (D) N T.J. Shope (R) Y Steve Smith (R) Y Victoria Steele (D) N David W. Stevens (R) Y Bob Thorpe (R) Y Kelly Townsend (R) Y Michelle Ugenti (R) N Bruce Wheeler (D) N Andy Tobin (R) Y   AYES: 31   NAYS: 26   NOT VOTING: 3   EXCUSED: 0   VACANT: 0

[Clay Shentrup]

Let's break that down by party:

Republicans:

Yes: 31

No: 4

Not voting: 1

Democrats:

Yes: 0

No: 22

Not voting: 2

So 86% of Republicans voted yes. So what are prospects in the senate?

http://www.azleg.gov/MemberRoster.asp

17 Republicans

13 Democrats

86% would be 14 Republicans. JUST ENOUGH to pass.

[Warren D Smith]

> So 86% of Republicans voted yes. So what are prospects in the senate?
> http://www.azleg.gov/MemberRoster.asp
>
> 17 Republicans
> 13 Democrats
>
> 86% would be 14 Republicans. JUST ENOUGH to pass.

--No, 14 yes loses to 3+13=16 no.

Analysis:The party breakdown was very amazing and (I will argue) promising:
86% of Republicans and 0% of Democrats supported Approval Voting.

Huh??? Simple hypothesis. Neither Republicans or Democrats give a hoot about
what is good for the country, all they care about is getting elected. Arizona
is a highly Republican state. Therefore, a big way Democrats can hope to still
be able to occasionally win, is by enjoying a lucky Vote Split pathology under
the plurality system, where (say) it is Republican versus Extreme Rightist "Tea
Party" Candidate versus Democrat.
With approval, vote splitting no longer exists. So the Dems figure Approval
will hurt them & the Republicans figure Approval voting will help them.

Why is that "promising"? Well, it is disgusting and putrid and confirms all my
worst cynical theories. (I keep getting more cynical the longer I work on
voting). But never mind that.
The thing is, in EVERY state where one party is in charge and the other is
struggling,
presumably the majority party would support Approval (or Range=Score?) voting,
while the minority will oppose this reform.

That means this reform will have good chances!

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 02:11 AM 3/17/2013, Warren D Smith wrote:
> > So 86% of Republicans voted yes. So what are prospects in the senate?
> > http://www.azleg.gov/MemberRoster.asp
> >
> > 17 Republicans
> > 13 Democrats
> >
> > 86% would be 14 Republicans. JUST ENOUGH to pass.
>
>--No, 14 yes loses to 3+13=16 no.
>
>Analysis:The party breakdown was very amazing and (I will argue) promising:
>86% of Republicans and 0% of Democrats supported Approval Voting.
>
>Huh??? Simple hypothesis. Neither Republicans or Democrats give a hoot about
>what is good for the country, all they care about is getting elected.

That's an exaggeration, but it *is* a factor. It rather obviously is
one here, but there is something unusual going on.

> Arizona
>is a highly Republican state. Therefore, a big way Democrats can hope to still
>be able to occasionally win, is by enjoying a lucky Vote Split pathology under
>the plurality system, where (say) it is Republican versus Extreme
>Rightist "Tea
>Party" Candidate versus Democrat.

That's not very likely to be how the Democrats are thinking. Warren,
a study could be done of how Democrats have been winning in the State.

What's very unusual here is that the majority party is supporting a
voting system reform. That contradicts the general principle that
those in power will oppose genuine reform. So what is actually
happening here. I haven't seen that we have actually looked at this
bill. So here is the text I found:

linked as current text from
http://openstates.org/az/bills/51st-1st-regular/HB2518/

>1 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:
>2 Section 1. Title 16, chapter 4, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended
>3 by adding article 8.2, to read:
>4 ARTICLE 8.2. OPTIONAL CITY AND TOWN APPROVAL VOTING
>5 16-559. City and town approval voting; requirements
>6 A. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER STATUTE, A CITY OR TOWN IN THIS STATE MAY
>7 BY ORDINANCE ESTABLISH AND USE A SYSTEM OF APPROVAL VOTING IN THAT CITY'S OR
>8 TOWN'S PRIMARY OR FIRST ELECTION. AN APPROVAL VOTING SYSTEM SHALL PROVIDE
>9 FOR THE FOLLOWING:
>10 1. THE VOTER IN THE PRIMARY OR FIRST ELECTION SHALL BE PERMITTED TO
>11 VOTE FOR AS MANY CANDIDATES FOR A SINGLE OFFICE AS THE VOTER CHOOSES TO
>12 APPROVE.
>13 2. THE TWO CANDIDATES WHO RECEIVE THE HIGHEST AND SECOND HIGHEST
>14 NUMBER OF VOTES IN THE PRIMARY OR FIRST ELECTION SHALL ADVANCE TO
>THE GENERAL
>15 OR RUNOFF ELECTION FOR THAT CITY OR TOWN WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER ANY ONE
>16 CANDIDATE HAS RECEIVED A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST FOR THAT OFFICE.
>17 3. THE BALLOT AND ALL OTHER VOTING MATERIALS SHALL CLEARLY INDICATE
>18 THAT THE VOTER MAY VOTE FOR AS MANY CANDIDATES IN THAT ELECTION
>AS THE VOTER
>19 CHOOSES, AND THAT THE CANDIDATES WHO RECEIVE THE TWO HIGHEST
>NUMBER OF VOTES
>20 SHALL ADVANCE TO THE GENERAL OR RUNOFF ELECTION.
>21 B. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS ARTICLE, CITY AND TOWN
>22 APPROVAL VOTING ELECTIONS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
>23 PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 8 OF THIS CHAPTER.
>24 16-559.01. Approval voting; charter; ordinance
>25 THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT REQUIRE A CITY OR TOWN TO ADOPT AN APPROVAL
>26 VOTING SYSTEM, BUT A CITY OR TOWN MAY AMEND ITS CHARTER IF
>REQUIRED FOR THAT
>27 CITY OR TOWN TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO IMPLEMENT AN APPROVAL
>VOTING SYSTEM AS
>28 PRESCRIBED BY THIS ARTICLE.

So ... Approval is to be used in "city and town" *primaries.* This is
a runoff voting system.

I reviewed pages linked from
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp?Title=16 and
found little information on city and town elections. Some interesting
aspects of the election code:

Chapter 2, Article 1, Primary Election
16-203. Primary election for nomination of candidates in municipalities
A primary election for nominations of candidates entitling the
nominated candidates to have their names printed on the official
ballots at municipal elections in incorporated cities and towns shall
be held not less than thirty days prior to the elections.

Chapter 4 Conduct of elections
Article 1 General Provisions
<http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/16/00403.htm&Title=16&DocType=ARS>16-403
City or town primaries; duties of officers
In city or town primary elections, the duties devolving upon the
secretary of state in other elections shall devolve upon the mayor or
similar governing officer, board or commission, and the duties
prescribed in this chapter devolving upon the clerk of the board of
supervisors shall devolve upon the city or town clerk.
<http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/16/00409.htm&Title=16&DocType=ARS>16-409
Certain cities, towns and school districts; mail ballot elections; report
A. Notwithstanding section 16-558, a city, town or school district
may conduct a mail ballot election. A mail ballot election shall be
conducted as otherwise prescribed by article 8.1 of this chapter.
B. Cities, towns or school districts that conduct mail ballot
elections pursuant to subsection A of this section shall report to
the president of the senate and the speaker of the house of
representatives by January 1 of each year immediately following a
mail ballot election. The report shall include the following:
1. Changes in voter turnout.
2. Relative costs of mail ballot elections compared to traditional elections.
3. Suggestions for improvements or refinements in the mail ballot program.
4. Frequency and severity of mail ballot irregularities.
5. Voter satisfaction with the election process.
6. Number of nondeliverable ballots.

Apparently cities and towns prescribe their own election rules.

http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2012/05/02/cities-counties-urge-brewer-to-veto-consolidated-elections-bill/

>Tucson is the only city in Arizona that holds partisan municipal elections
>[...] the Arizona Supreme Court's ruling from earlier this year
>[2012] [...] struck a law forcing Tucson to abandon its partisan
>elections. The court struck down the 2009 law, saying that as a
>charter city, Tucson had the right to decide whether its elections
>are partisan.

While Tucson is a large town, it has a population, according to
Wikipedia, of 520,116.
Phoenix has 1,445,632. 5,021,810 of Arizona's 6,392,017 residents
within cities and towns, so the Approval Voting bill is dealing with
elections that are roughly 90% non-partisan.

No, the partisan vote is difficult to understand. It would have to be
based on some fear about the future. It could be an effort to prevent
an experiment that might later be extended to state offices ... or
even Presidential elections. Yet advanced voting systems can be seen
as *usually* benefiting the minor party of the two major parties,
because they can then gather support from third parties.

It is obvious from the House vote that there is some partisan issue
involved. But what it is remains mysterious without much more
investigation. What was the debate on the House bill? How did
Democrats argue against this bill?

And where is the lobbying campaign from progressive voting reform
people, to argue for Democratic Party support for this bill?

Here is what Warren wrote:

>With approval, vote splitting no longer exists. So the Dems figure Approval
>will hurt them & the Republicans figure Approval voting will help them.

This bill is only for cities and towns, local elections, and it
appears that 90% of those are nonpartisan.

>Why is that "promising"? Well, it is disgusting and putrid and confirms all my
>worst cynical theories. (I keep getting more cynical the longer I work on
>voting). But never mind that.

As you become more cynical, you see more cause to be cynical. That's
how the mind works, Warren, you should become aware of this, because
it can radically damage your ability to function well.

>The thing is, in EVERY state where one party is in charge and the other is
>struggling,
>presumably the majority party would support Approval (or Range=Score?) voting,
>while the minority will oppose this reform.

That's the reverse of what we thought. We have considered that voting
reforms were likely to arise due to coincidence of interests of
minority parties, and especially where the majority party is really a
plurality party. Minor parties need to be able to garner votes in the
gubernatorial election, and vote-for-one there inhibits minority
party votes, they would get more votes if Approval were implemented.

>That means this reform will have good chances!

We don't know what's going on, and I see no sign that Warren actually
does. Perhaps he does. Warren, do you have any evidence for your claim?

This bill could only affect Tucson, which is, I suspect, a more
liberal town than the state average. So I looked at results:

http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/files/clerks/2011general/cumulative.pdf
2011 General election. For Mayor
Democrat 46,717
Republican 33,922
Green 4,195
For Wards, 3 elections that year
Ward 1 had no Republican Candidate, vote was Democrat 47,439 and Green 24,977.
Ward 2 Democrat 47,360, Republican 35,722.
Ward 3 Democrat 42,018, Republican 40,166.

I see a danger of a spoiler effect only with one ward, and it would
be a hazard to the Democrat, not the Republican.

Hence the fear that passage of the House Bill would help Republicans
and harm Democrats is not based on fact. However, it would allow the
Green Party to begin to establish itself more deeply. Hence the place
to look for increased support for Approval would be among progressive
Democrats and Green Party supporters.

It's possible that FairVote has gotten to them. Any sign of FairVote
activity in Arizona, targeting this Bill?

Just for fun:

Along the way, I found this, a relic of days gone by, about the
"Communist Party."
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/16/00805.htm&Title=16&DocType=ARS

And proxy voting is allowed in political party process:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/16/00828.htm&Title=16&DocType=ARS

Given mail voting, allowed, and proxy voting in political party
process, two-round systems may be more feasible in Arizona than elsewhere.

This hasn't received notice here: the Bill allows approval voting in
*primaries.* Not the general election, so ... what is going on? It
really doesn't make sense, so far.

Essentially, it could be presented this way: the Democratic Party
fears that its own process would become more democratic, because
that's all this bill is about, that is the only way that it affects
Democrats. Now, *that* is ironic.

http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/sites/default/files/clerks/2011Primary/official_canvass-1.pdf
covers the primary election.

If we look at the number of registered voters in Tucson, per this
report, there are almost two times as many registered Democrats as
Republicans. The only way for a Republican to win in Tucson is to
have a massive get-out-the-vote campaign, and ... surely the
Democrats would notice.

Compared to 113,737 registered Democrats, there are 2596 Libertarians
and 1063 Green. Given the serious dominance of the Democratic party
in Tucson, one would think that those who might vote Green would
register in the Party. It would only spoil an election if a *lot*
more Greens decided to vote Green in a general election.

I don't know the overall makeup of the Tucson municipal council, but
from that one sample, it would be heavily Democratic, with some
possible Green presence, see Ward 1, and see the Mayoral results.

Okay, there are 6 Wards. One was a Republican, for Ward 6. He just,
this year, switched affiliation to the Democratic Party, having been
a rare Republican to get elected to the Council.

The House Bill does *not* implement Approval Voting anywhere. It
*allows* a municipality to implement it. If it's true that the
Democrats don't want Approval, there is no way for it to happen short
of some public initiative in Tucson. And that seems pretty unlikely.

Okay, I'm going to send this mail, but did just find this apparent
Democratic blog, that gives an argument against Approval. I'll
consider that in a separate post. The title says a great deal.

http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2013/03/gop-vote-rigging-scheme-passes-the-arizona-house.html

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

Subject was Re: [CES #7528] Re: How HB 2518 broke down

http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2013/03/gop-vote-rigging-scheme-passes-the-arizona-house.html

This is how at least one Democrat views the Approval Voting Bill.

First the blog quotes this:

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/legislature-briefs/article_67329cca-40b8-59d7-bdfd-62f1627c15c0.html

>A bill approved Monday by the House could radically revamp how
>cities and towns conduct their elections.
>
>Under current law, the first vote, or primary election, usually
>narrows the field to the top two vote-getters, who advance to a runoff.
>
>Rep. Justin Olson, R-Mesa, said problems arise when there are
>perhaps eight candidates with a conservative point of view and just
>two who are considered liberals. With voters entitled to cast
>ballots for only one, Olson said that creates a "spoiler effect,"
>where the conservatives split the vote and the runoff in what might
>be a conservative community deciding between the two liberals.
>
>HB 2518 would permit cities to alter their system so individuals
>could vote for as many - or as few - candidates as they want. Olson
>argued that would create a better chance for candidates whose views
>more realistically reflect that of the community.
>
>He said the system would not work in Tucson, which has partisan primaries.
>
>Monday's 31-26 vote sends the measure to the Senate.

It looks to me that the bill would indeed apply in Tucson, but the
Republican said that the bill "would not work" in Tucson. Notice that
the Bill only "permits" cities and towns to implement Approval. Since
Tucson has partisan primaries, if Approval were implemented, it would
allow *Democrats" -- who almost always win in Tucson -- to choose the
most widely approved Democrat. This could allow Greens, for example,
to register as Democrats, and there is a good chance that many
already are so registered, from vote totals.

But our Democratic blogger sees a conspiracy here, even though the
Republicans actually split in voting on this bill, i.e., they were
*not* monolithic. The *Democrats* were monolithic in opposition.

So our blogger goes on.

>The language of the bill approved by the House does not indicate
>that it is intended to be "ranked choice voting" or what is
>sometimes referred to as
><http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FInstant-runoff_voting&ei=PmY_UeepJ4q62gXKs4G4Dg&usg=AFQjCNEK7_Y9oQEBgYKWT5f6tpNpu637kg&bvm=bv.43287494,d.b2I>Instant-runoff
>voting, in which voters rank the candidates in order of preference
>rather than simply selecting a single candidate. Instant-runoff is
>employed by only a handful of jurisdictions in the United States,
>including Portland, Maine; San Francisco, California; Oakland,
>California; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Saint Paul, Minnesota (all
>"liberal" municipalities).

Not mentioned, of course, Burlington, VT, an *even more liberal*
municipality. I.e., probably majority Democrat, but the Progressive
Party was able to win under IRV, in an election where the votes made
it plain that the Democrat would have been a more widely-approved
choice, hence Burlington dumped IRV. I'd say that this blogger is
telegraphing support for IRV, and gives a classic FairVote argument
against Approval:

>The language of the House bill violates the "one person, one vote"
>standard of Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) by giving voters
>random mutiple votes. It is a vote rigging scheme, pure and simple.

Total ignorance. Approval Voting has *never* been found to violate
that principle. (Bucklin is ranked Approval, and the claim was made
in Brown v. Smallwood, in Minnesota re the Bucklin method; that
ruling was downright weird, self-contradictory, and IRV allows voters
to cast more than one vote, it simply counts them in a way that only
allows one vote at a time to be *effective.* Approval *could* be
counted in the same way, but it would simply be a stupid complication
with no effect. The reason is that, in the end, only one vote from
each voter actually counts, the one cast for a winner. All other
votes, should a voter cast more than one, could be eliminated from
the totals and it would have no effect. Voting for more than one
choice on a ballot is well-established with ballot questions, when
there are multiple ballot questions presented on the same ballot. If
this were a violation of one-person, one vote, it would be one there as well.

> Here are the operative provisions of the bill:

(I quoted the bill in my previous post)

>The purpose and intent of this GOP vote rigging scheme is just as
>Rep. Olson describes it -- to prevent a Democratic candidate from
>advancing in a primary in a Republican voter registration edge
>district. He accomplishes this not by "ranked choice voting," but by
>giving voters random multiple votes. The top two winners would be
>decided by the number of randomly cast mutiple votes.

That was a Republican advancing an argument of interest to
Republicans, and the blogger is completely neglecting that tis is not
about Party affiliation *except in Tucson,* where the situation is
reversed. This bill will have very little effect on Tucson, unless
the Democratic Party, which pretty much runs Tucson (The Mayor and
the entire City Council are Democrats), decides to implement
Approval. There is no analysis shown of how this would harm Democrats
in a "Republican Voter Edge district," and no showing that such a
situation actually exists. Generally, Approval is expected to give
minority parties a chance to progress, to show actual party strength,
but in *every city and town in Arizona except Tucson,* the primary
elections are nonpartisan, party names are not allowed on the ballot.

This blogger would seem to favor IRV, but, like the typical FairVote
drone, has no realization that in nonpartisan elections, IRV is
*useless*. People do not, in these elections, vote according to party
preference and, indeed, most voters may be entirely unaware of it.
The first Bucklin election, in the early 20th century, in Colorado,
elected a *Socialist*, but ... it was a nonpartisan election. He was
a dark horse candidate, who won after three rounds of amalgamation of
votes. Bucklin, because it does use a ranked ballot, is "Instant
Runoff Approval," but counts all the votes, instead of discarding
some, as IRV does.

>For example, let's say there are 30,000 registered voters. And let's
>say voter turnout in the primary is exceptional for Arizona, with a
>20% turnout -- 6,000 voters go to the polls. Using Rep. Olson's
>example with eight Republican and two Democratic candidates and
>voters casting random mutiples of votes, the total number of votes
>cast will far exceed the number of registered voters. I cannot see
>how this can possibly pass constitutional muster under Baker v.
>Carr, nor receive Department of Justice preclearance.
>
>This bill should be defeated or vetoed by the governor. it will be
>litigated if it is enacted.

The blogger has no idea that Approval has been tested in the U.S.,
through Bucklin. Minnesota's dumping of Bucklin was *in spite* of
massive approval from constitutional lawyers, and precedent from
other states. Bucklin was dumped in Oklahoma, after being passed by
the Legislature, because the law *required* multiple ranking, which
is often done to make ranked voting systems work better, that's how
preferential voting is handled in many Australian states. It was not
dumped because of an alleged one-person, one-vote violation.

Baker v. Carr was a very complex case. At first I couldn't see
relevance to the issue of Approval voting. The issue of Justice
Department preclearance is weird. This is a measure affecting only
municipal elections, and shows no kind of preference that might even
possibly raise a federal issue.

Here is the text of Baker v. Carr:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=369&invol=186

From the Wikipedia presentation of this case, we can see why it was cited:

>Having declared
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting>redistricting issues
>justiciable in Baker, the court laid out a new test for evaluating
>such claims. The Court formulated the famous
>"<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_man_one_vote>one person, one
>vote" standard under
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States>American jurisprudence
>for
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_redistricting>legislative
>redistricting, holding that each individual had to be weighted
>equally in legislative apportionment; this principle was formally
>enunciated in the 1964 case
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims>Reynolds v. Sims.

The analysis is not specifically cited. The problem has *nothing to
do with single elections," Baker v. Carr was about apportionment,
hence it is *completely* irrelevant to the Arizona House Bill. It's
just a mention of "one person, one vote," which is a principle that
*does* apply to all elections, but *Approval Voting does not violate
it," as that principle is interpreted. Applying it to mean that
Approval is prohibited is dumbing it down to a mere appearance, and,
as I point out above, IRV would *also* violate the appearance. (And,
by the way, IRV would have been dumped by the Minnesota Supreme
Court, under the arguments that were given, because it gives power to
an "additional vote." In reality, it's very likely that the Minnesota
Court was just taking a political action, and the decision, read
carefully, is self-contradictory; political establishments in general
dislike advanced voting systems.)

(The decision stated, citing precedent, that what mattered was not
the number of *votes*, but the number of *voters* supporting an
outcome. And then they proceeded to count the number of *votes*,
completely disregarding what they had just stated so clearly. Yes,
total votes cast under any Approval system -- including Approval,
Bucklin, Range --- or, for that matter any ranked ballot system that
considers all the votes, and the argument can be applied to IRV as
well. As I've mentioned multiple voting for alternate propositions is
commonly accepted, and has been for a very long time. An election can
be considered a choice between multiple alternatives, so disallowing
multiple votes is simply a choice that could be made the other way.
There is no constitutional issue.)

This is a summary of what Baker v. Carr was about:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_impact_of_Baker_v_Carr_on_the_US
>The US Supreme Court overturned the Tennessee law as
>unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection
>Clause. The Court ordered the State to reapportion their districts
>according to the census count so each had approximately the same
>number of voters, rather than the same size territory.

Of course, what about the U.S. Senate? Never mind, let's not review
that question today!

There is a detailed review of the impact of Baker v. Carr on the
Democratic party, specifically.

http://www.socsci.uci.edu/~bgrofman/R106%20Brunell-Grofman-Partisan%20Consequences.pdf

>The Partisan Consequences of Baker v. Carr and the One Person, One
>Vote Revolution

Again, this is *totally* about apportionment, not about voting
procedure. The last sentence of the paper:

>the pretext of insuring strict compliance with one person, one vote, can
>act as a disguise for the most blatant of partisan gerrymanders and
>the creation of some really
>quite "ugly looking" districts.18

The only possible application of a Baker v. Carr standard to, say,
Tucson, would be in the drawing of the Ward boundaries, which is
completely irrelevant to the issue of voting in primaries.

Any other commentary from Democrats or FairVote activists?

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

http://armorandshield.blogspot.com/2012/05/approval-voting-supporters-are-jerry.html

Blog title: Super Heroes Intent on Exposing Leftist Deceivers

Nut case.

Makes a Big Important Point. The blogger states
that "Andrew Jennings" is the son-in-law of
"Jerry Lewis." Jerry Lewis -- if this is the same
Jerry Lewis -- has a daughter, Danielle Sara
Lewis, who could be about the right age, anyway.
However, hello? This means absolutely nothing
except to a wing nut conspiracy theorist.

The blog does report the committee vote as 7-0 in
favor, and lists the members. However, these were
members of the 50th Arizona Legislature. They
could not have been voting on our HB 2518. The
blogger may be a tad confused, for HB 2518 was
introduced in the 51st Legislature. I thought at
first that the committee session might have been
a lame duck session. Apparently not.

Embarrassing.

With the committee votes, I give the party and the final vote on the floor .

In the Judiciary Committee, 2013-02-21
http://legiscan.com/AZ/rollcall/HB2518/id/236196
Rep. Allen J Yea (R) Y
Rep. Contreras Nay (D) N
Rep. Farnsworth Yea (R) Y
Rep. Goodale Yea (R) Y
Rep. Hale Nay (D) N
Rep. Orr Yea (R) Y
Rep. Pierce J Yea (R) NV
Rep. Quezada Absent (D) N

In the Rules Committee, 2013-03-07
http://legiscan.com/AZ/rollcall/HB2518/id/243856
>Rep. Farnsworth Yea (R) Y
>Rep. Gowan Yea (R) Y
>Rep. Gray R Yea (R) N
>Rep. Hale Yea (D) N
>Rep. Mesnard Absent (R) Y
>Rep. Quezada Absent (D) N
>Rep. Robson Yea (R) Y
>Rep. Tobin Yea (R) Y
>Rep. Wheeler Yea (D) N
On the House floor, third reading, 2013-03-11
http://www.azleg.gov//FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/51leg/1r/bills/hb2518.hthird.1.asp&Session_ID=110
(I alphabetized it by last name. McCune-Davis is hyphenated, I checked.)

>Y = Yes
>N = No
>NV = Not Voting
>EXC = Excused
>V = Vacant
>Member Name Vote

>John Allen (R) Y
>Lela Alston (D) N
>Brenda Barton (R) Y
>Sonny Borrelli (R) Y
>Paul Boyer (R) Y
>Kate Brophy McGee (R) Y
>Chad Campbell (D) N
>Mark A. Cardenas (D) N
>Heather Carter (R) Y
>Doug Coleman (R) Y
>Lupe Chavira Contreras (D) N
>Andrea Dalessandro (D)N
>Jeff Dial (R) Y
>Juan Carlos Escamilla (D) N

>NKaren Fann (R) Y

>Eddie Farnsworth (R) Y
>Thomas Forese (R) Y
>Rosanna Gabaldón (D) N
>Ruben Gallego (D) NV
>Sally Ann Gonzales (D) N
>Doris Goodale (R) Y
>David M. Gowan Sr. (R) Y
>Rick Gray (R) N
>Albert Hale (D) N
>Lydia Hernández (D) N
>John Kavanagh (R) N
>Adam Kwasman (R) Y
>Jonathan Larkin (D) N
>Debbie Lesko (R) Y
>David Livingston (R) Y
>Phil Lovas (R) Y
>Stefanie Mach (D) N

>Debbie McCune-Davis (D) N

>Juan Mendez (D) N
>Javan "J.D." Mesnard (R) Y
>Eric Meyer (D) NV
>Catherine H. Miranda (D) N
>Darin Mitchell (R) Y
>Steve Montenegro (R) Y
>Justin Olson (R) Y
>Ethan Orr (R) Y
>Lisa Otondo (D) N
>Jamescita Peshlakai (D) N
>Warren Petersen (R) Y
>Justin Pierce (R) NV
>Frank Pratt (R) Y
>Martín J. Quezada (D) N
>Bob Robson (R) Y
>Macario Saldate IV (D) N
>Carl Seel (R) N
>Andrew Sherwood (D) N
>T.J. Shope (R) Y
>Steve Smith (R) Y
>Victoria Steele (D) N
>David W. Stevens (R) Y
>Bob Thorpe (R) Y

>Andy Tobin (R)Y

>Kelly Townsend (R) Y
>Michelle Ugenti (R)N
>Bruce Wheeler (D)N
>

>AYES: 31 NAYS: 26 NOT VOTING: 3 EXCUSED: 0 VACANT: 0

So, I notice the following:

Quezada was a Democrat, absent from both committee meetings.

Hale is a Democrat, voted N in the Judiciary
Committee, then Y in the Rules Committee. and
then N again on the floor. It looks like Hale was
willing to sign on, but then was strong-armed on
the floor, or someone got to him with one of the
usual misleading arguments. However, the
monolithic Democratic vote would not be a result
of sincere positions, regardless. Approval Voting
is not a classic Republican, anti-Democratic, cause.

There was one Republican, Pierce, who favored the
measure in Committee and who did not vote on the floor.
There was one Republican, Gray, who favored the
measure in Committee and who then voted against it on the floor.

Conclusion: this is a time for a vigorous
campaign in Arizona, to reach Democratic state
senators, in particular. I still have not found
any sane Democratic argument against the bill.
The second comittee vote shows one Democratic
representative changing his mind (but then
switching back to vote solidly with his party on
the floor). That indicates to me that it's
important that senators get good information.

The application of approval voting to primaries
in a runoff system -- which is what they have,
apparently -- should not be controversial.

This is *only* for municipal primaries, they are
almost entirely open, nonpartisan primaries, no
party affilication on the ballot. IRV would do
zilch in this environment. The only exception is
Tucson, where Approval would improve the party
primaries, which are *not* open primaries, that
is, voters only can vote in one, I'm not sure if
it is based on how they are registered or on
choice at election time, but there is no way that
Republicans could, in Tucson, mangle the
Democratic primary badly enough to harm the
chances of a Democrat winning, the most that they
could do would be to push things toward their
preferred Democrat. Which would *increase* the
Democratic vote in the main, general election.
There are twice as many registered Democrats than
Republicans in Tucson, if I have it right.

Now is the time for rapid action. CES, are we ready?

[Warren D Smith]

>We don't know what's going on, and I see no sign that Warren actually does. Perhaps >he does. Warren, do you have any evidence for your claim?

--To clarify, I do NOT know what is going on. As I'd said, that was
only a "hypothesis."

The bill as Abd points out (having now produced the actual text)
pertains to PRIMARY
elections in cities/towns, and then there will be (as bill says) a
GENERAL election
after it. The bill does not cause that general election to be approval.
Further, it says the top two most-approved primary candidates advance
to general election.

Now you might think this means:
1. there will be a Republican primary and a Democratic Primary and a
Green Primary, and the top two Greens, top two Democrats, and top two
Republicans will advance to the
general election which then would have (in this case) at least 6 candidates.

But you might alternatively think it means (which is quite different):
2. The top two among {R1, R2, R3, D1, D2, D3, G1, G2} will advance to
the general election, which will have at most 2 candidates.

It is not obvious which of these two, quite different, meanings the
bill intends.

Which does it mean? The precise wording in the bill is "the primary
or first election"
repeated twice. The key word would appear to be "the" as opposed to
the word (which was not used) "a" or "each."
Due to this, I conclude that meaning 2 is intended, and further it
this is intended to
not to easily be realized by a casual reader.
In short, they are trying to con you.

The Democratic blogger Abd found (whom I thought incoherent) called this
bill a "Republican election-rigging scheme."

I am now suspecting (even more cynically than before) that the blogger
is correct.
In Arizona, the bulk of the voters are Republican, since it is a
Republican state.
That means there will be more Republican primary voters than Democratic.
That means it is highly likely that the top two finishers in the
primary will both be Republicans. In such a case there therefore
will never be a Republican vs Democrat head-to-head race. There will
instead be a Republican vs Republican race in the general election.

So I'm now leaning toward the hypothesis this IS an election-rigging
scheme -- and not about approval voting per se at all, that is merely
its convenient disguise.

In any event it is stunning how the wording on this bill was (at best)
highly confusing.

In support of this theory, I mention Abd's finding that roughly 90% of AZ's
city/town elections are nonpartisan (currently) which -- if that means
that they already
have all-in-one-pot primaries -- supports my new hypothesis.

I also mention the following bit of recent Arizona history.
"Proposition 121" would have enacted an "open primary" in Arizona meaning
there is not "a Republican primary and a Democratic Primary and a
Green Primary";
instead there is just one combined, all in one pot, primary, open to all voters
and all candidates. The top 2 finishers in it go on to the general election.
The full text of prop 121 is here:
http://rangevoting.org/AZprop121.pdf
The voters of Arizona rejected prop 121 in November 2012,
instead choosing to stay with a partisan primary system.

So it would appear that the intent of HB 2518 is to somewhat enact
prop 121 anyway, sneaking around the voter rejection to implement it
via a "back door."

Computer simulations (but which completely ignored parties) indicate the
election system with
1. all-in-one-pot first round = top 2 approval winners,
2. second round = 2-candidate runoff,
is a very good system regret-wise, in spite of seeming a bit of a kludge.
And compared to prop 121, HB 2518 is superior in the sense it uses
approval voting
(prop 121 did not) in the primaries.

So: should we (or anybody) support HB 2518?
If my guess is correct that 90% of AZ elections affected, already currently are
1. all-in-one-pot first round = top 2 plurality winners,
2. second round = 2-candidate runoff,
then the sole change will be plurality->approval, which is an improvement.

Meanwhile the 10% of AZ elections (such as Tucson) which were not of
that form, will be forced to abandon their partisan primary systems.
Is that an improvement?
I don't know, but the computer simulations that ignore partytude, say yes.

--
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
"endorse" as 1st step)

[Warren D Smith]

HB 2518 says each city/town "may" enact the new approval system HB
26518 has in mind.

The key word is "may" not "must."

Hence, a town like Tucson could choose to stay with its current
system if it did not like the one HB 2518 proposes.

In view of this, I think the cynical hypothesis that HB 2518 is merely
"a Republican election-rigging scheme" is unjustified. I think its
effect on towns that use the same scheme but with plurality not
approval, will be: improvement. Its effect on towns which
have partisan primaries will be: giving those towns another option.

So, my current guess is: one should support HB 2518.

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 03:22 PM 3/17/2013, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
>http://armorandshield.blogspot.com/2012/05/approval-voting-supporters-are-jerry.html
>
>Blog title: Super Heroes Intent on Exposing Leftist Deceivers
>
>Nut case.
>
>Makes a Big Important Point. The blogger states that "Andrew
>Jennings" is the son-in-law of "Jerry Lewis." Jerry Lewis -- if this
>is the same Jerry Lewis -- has a daughter, Danielle Sara Lewis, who
>could be about the right age, anyway. However, hello? This means
>absolutely nothing except to a wing nut conspiracy theorist.
>
>The blog does report the committee vote as 7-0 in favor, and lists
>the members. However, these were members of the 50th Arizona
>Legislature. They could not have been voting on our HB 2518. The
>blogger may be a tad confused, for HB 2518 was introduced in the
>51st Legislature. I thought at first that the committee session
>might have been a lame duck session. Apparently not.
>
>Embarrassing.

Okay, I was myself confused. There was an HB 2569 in the 50th
Legislature. The text appears to be the same as HB2518 in the 51st,
so it was re-introduced.

It was approved by the Judiciary Committee, "2012-02-09 - Referred to
House RULES Committee"

This was the vote then. Most of these members are no longer in the
legislature, but for those who are, I show the final vote on the
floor, as I did before. Affiliations are from a 2012 Wikipedia page,
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arizona_House_of_Representatives&oldid=504448008#Current_members.2C_2011.E2.80.932013

http://legiscan.com/AZ/rollcall/HB2569/id/152156
>Rep. Ash Y (R) -
>Rep. Chabin Y (D) -
>Rep. Farnsworth Y (R) Y
>Rep. Goodale Y (R) Y
>Rep. Hale Y (D) N
>Rep. Harper Absent (R) -
>Rep. Smith D Y (R) -
>Rep. Tovar Y (D) -
>Rep. Vogt NV (R) -

Notice: There were three Democrats on the Committee. All voted in
favor of the bill. So ... what happened after this hearing?

Here is a report of that session of the Judiciary Committee:

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/50leg/2r/comm_min/house/020912%20jud.doc.htm

The report of the committee process shows *no* opposition. Andrew
Jennings spoke, representing himself.

So, how do we have a situation where three committees consider a
bill, all approve it, and with the first committee, two out of three
Democrats approve it, but those two leave the legislature, the one
who did disapprove -- with no argument -- later approved it in the
third committee meeting, and then *every Democrat votes against it.*
What is going on? Are they agin' it because Republicans are for it?

[Warren D Smith]

> Greg Pfeil:
> I'm curious as to how this fits into the bigger election picture. It looks
like this is an open primary with approval voting, where the top two get on the
general ballot.
>
> When I was living in Washington a while ago (2004–2007), there was a
referendum on the ballot (which passed, but was later struck down for some
reason) that did effectively the same thing, but with the primary being
plurality.
>
> My problem with this setup is that it's the _primary_ voters (a tiny fraction
of general voters) who effectively pick the winner (well, they pick two to
choose from, which may not even be from different parties). In fact, it seems
that with approval voting, it's even more likely that the two candidates who end
up on the general ballot are from the same party. The features that are normally
strengths (EG, immunity to candidate cloning) would actually be a weakness here.
>
> Am I missing something? Are my fears justified?

--Warren D Smith:
They might be. Other people & myself are trying to figure this out.
The HB 2518 bill text is here:
http://rangevoting.org/Arizona2013.html

A failed attempt (Prop. 121, rejected by AZ voters in Nov 2012) to enact open
primary with plurality voting, where the top two get on the general ballot, is
here:
http://rangevoting.org/AZprop121.pdf

HB 2518 is worded in a way that might not mean what a casual reader initially
thinks it means. Some have claimed it is a "Republican election rigging
scheme" -- a view apparently believed by the Democrats who voted monolithically
against HB 2518 (but it passed the house anyhow).

But I'm now tending to believe everybody should favor HB 2518.
Consider this logic:

1. For AZ towns+cities which already have a system where there is an open
all-in-one-pot primary whose two plurality winners (and them only) advance to
the general, the effect of HB 2518 will be changing plurality to approval, which
is a clear improvement, at least
in computer simulations that ignore parties.
(And Abd Lomax seems to think this is the vast majority of AZ towns.)

It might be, however, that all the R voters will approve all Rs (and them alone)
while all D voters will approve all Ds (and them alone) in primary, in which
case under the current system the general election would usually be D vs R,
while under the improved system it would often be R vs R. Would this really
represent an "improvement?" It might, but from many Democrats' point of view,
it would not. An R would usually win but
Democrats would get much more voice in deciding which R would win, than they
currently get, which (this is my guess) would be an improvement for Democratic
voters, but perhaps not for Democratic office holders.

2. For AZ towns+cities which currently have partisan primaries
(Abd Lomax seems to think this is a small minority of AZ towns, most notably
including Tucson) the effect of HB 2518 will be: offering those towns a new
open+approval option, which they are not forced to adopt.

(Actually, the whole bill is merely offering each city/town this option, none
are forced to adopt it.)

In view of this, my current guess is everybody should support HB 2518,
and the Dems' opposition was due to confusion/greed by them. Indeed, the Dem
opposition could legitimately be viewed as "a Democratic election-rigging
scheme"!

(But another possibility is:
I am still confused. I definitely was confused in the past.)

If HB2518 passed then each individual town/city would do it or not (and probably
few would do anything) and each such attempt to do anything would be a battle in
itself.

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 03:22 PM 3/17/2013, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

>http://armorandshield.blogspot.com/2012/05/approval-voting-supporters-are-jerry.html
>
>Blog title: Super Heroes Intent on Exposing Leftist Deceivers
>
>Nut case.

Now that I know that this nut was referring to
HB2569, I searched for "HB2569 Approval Voting"
and found another page where it looks like the
same person dumped the "Jerry Lewis" meme. (It's
likely that Jerry Lewis is the name of a candidate in some Arizona election.)

http://seeingredaz.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/dailys-promotion-of-political-sham-revs-up/

Perhaps Andrew Jennings can clear some of the
mystery up, though it's not important, really.

I could find no sign of any flap over HB2569,
that passed the Judiciary Committee in 2012. How
there came to be such a strong Democratic Party
opposition to it, then, remains a mystery. I
would guess that someone in the party leadership made the decision.

There is a podcast that I can't hear, at least not yet.

Google shows:

<http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&cad=rja&ved=0CEQQFjADOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpodcasts.odiogo.com%2Fblog-for-arizona%2Fpodcasts-xml.php&ei=WyJGUaaDBNTl4APUmoDYAw&usg=AFQjCNHx5aV5ETWu3i9q3vwB4aXZq1UM5A&sig2=HnBug_zJ6OXjOYN1MoaslA&bvm=bv.43828540,d.dmg>Legislature
continues attack on
voting<http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&cad=rja&ved=0CEQQFjADOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpodcasts.odiogo.com%2Fblog-for-arizona%2Fpodcasts-xml.php&ei=WyJGUaaDBNTl4APUmoDYAw&usg=AFQjCNHx5aV5ETWu3i9q3vwB4aXZq1UM5A&sig2=HnBug_zJ6OXjOYN1MoaslA&bvm=bv.43828540,d.dmg>
- Odiogo

>Mar 8, 2013 – events and questionable record
>keeping, as this reporter had reported .... GOP
>vote rigging scheme passes the Arizona House ...

>HB 2518 would permit cities to alter their
>system so individuals could vote for as many -

>or as few - candidates as they ... An approval
>voting system shall provide for the following: ...

But I did find out who Jerry Lewis is. He was a Republican State Senator,

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Jerry_Lewis,_Arizona_Senator

Republican. Won a 2011 recall election against
Russell Pierce, a Republican incumbent, 55.1% to
42.5%. However, in 2012, unopposed in the
Republican primary, he lost to a Democrat, 54% to
Lewis' 40.3%. There was a potential spoiler in
that race, a Libertarian, who gathered 5.7%.

Here is a clue as to what happened:

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/20024315/2012/11/06/republican-who-won-recall-loses-ariz-senate-race
>Lewis's successful challenge to Pearce in the
>recall put Lewis in office for the second half of Peace's two-year term.
>
>Pearce was Arizona's most prominent advocate of
>legislation against illegal immigration, and
>Lewis argued that lawmakers needed to pay more
>attention to broader matters such as the economy and education.
>
>Pearce represented a Republican-leaning district
>in Mesa, but redistricting put Lewis in a
>Democratic-leaning district centered on Tempe.

Lewis supported, essentially, a challenge to the
Republican incumbent, and beat that incumbent.
It's like that the state Republican machine,
which has a serious majority in the legislature,
and which had supported the incumbent, took a dim
view of this. So they tossed Lewis to the
redistricting dogs, providing him with a district in which he could not win.

Now, the blogger thinks that the Approval Voting
scheme, apparently, is Lewis's idea. But HB2518
would not apply to primaries for statewide office. It's completely irrelevant.

In that election, though, there was a potential
spoiler. It's unlikely, though, that Lewis could
win in the new district, even if Approval were used.

Now, Andrew, I hope you see this. I assume that
it's convenient for you to get to hearings and
committee meetings. I'd suggest the following actions:

1. Talk to the Democrat (Hale) who switched his
vote, and who still serves. If possible,
communicate with the other Democrats who
supported Approval in the previous legislative
committee session (Smith and Tovar), no longer
serving in the legislature, and see if they know
what happened. Something *possibly* happened before the end of 2012.

2. While it's possible HB2518 will pass anyway,
it's too important, I'd suggest, to just assume
that. So ... what's available in terms of sane
volunteers to talk with state senators? I'd
suggest, as well, seeing if any positions can be
expressed by Democratic House members, we don't
know -- at all, as far as I could find -- of the
reasons why they obviously opposed HB2518 on the
floor. Is there a record of the debate somewhere?

I was able to find no clue as to *any* organized
opposition, which is why the monolithic
Democratic vote is so puzzling. If anything, in
Arizona, this could help Democrats, but it's
actually more important as an improvement on
primaries in nonpartisan elections, but it
certainly won't hurt the Democratic Party in
Tucson, the only partisan election municipality.

3. Talk, as well, to Republican senators, and to
the Republican House members who voted against
the measure. Why did they do this? It will help
focus on what arguments to present.

I have no idea that this needs to be said, but,
as a general principle, cultivate an attitude of
detachment. You have knowledge, but ... don't
*ever* attack these people as "stupid" or
anything like that. Whether they are or not. Just seek to understand them.

[Andy Jennings]

On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:

Lewis supported, essentially, a challenge to the Republican incumbent, and beat that incumbent. It's like that the state Republican machine, which has a serious majority in the legislature, and which had supported the incumbent, took a dim view of this. So they tossed Lewis to the redistricting dogs, providing him with a district in which he could not win.

Actually, through some clever strategy, the Democrats pretty much controlled the redistricting in Arizona, but apparently they didn't see fit to let Lewis keep his seat.

Now, Andrew, I hope you see this. I assume that it's convenient for you to get to hearings and committee meetings. I'd suggest the following actions:

1. Talk to the Democrat (Hale) who switched his vote, and who still serves. If possible, communicate with the other Democrats who supported Approval in the previous legislative committee session (Smith and Tovar), no longer serving in the legislature, and see if they know what happened. Something *possibly* happened before the end of 2012.

Good suggestion.  Thanks.  I'll try to do this.

I will definitely keep you posted.

~ Andy

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 02:28 PM 3/17/2013, Warren D Smith wrote:
> >We don't know what's going on, and I see no
> sign that Warren actually does. Perhaps >he
> does. Warren, do you have any evidence for your claim?
>
>--To clarify, I do NOT know what is going on. As I'd said, that was
>only a "hypothesis."

Great.

>The bill as Abd points out (having now produced the actual text)
>pertains to PRIMARY
>elections in cities/towns, and then there will be (as bill says) a
>GENERAL election
>after it. The bill does not cause that general election to be approval.
>Further, it says the top two most-approved primary candidates advance
>to general election.
>
>Now you might think this means:
>1. there will be a Republican primary and a Democratic Primary and a
>Green Primary, and the top two Greens, top two Democrats, and top two
>Republicans will advance to the
>general election which then would have (in this case) at least 6 candidates.

It's unclear. That interpretation is, however,
quite unlikely to happen. Essentially, no city is
going to do this! Remember, there is only *one*
city running partisan municipal elections,
Tucson. There are four active parties there, so,
under this interpretation, there would be 8
candidates. Bonkers. The city would never do that.

What Tucson *might* do is to abandon the partisan
elections entirely. It's kind of a fish bicycle,
since only a Democrat can win there, under
present conditions. Of course, party machines can
think differently. But what they have now is a
public primary for registered Democrats,
apparently. Approval is not going to hurt them,
but the version used would have to be no what is
in HB2518. Municipalities aparently do choose
their own voting systems, and it's not clear how
HB2518 would prevent them from using single-winner Approval for primaries.

But, in fact, the open nonpartisan primary would be superior, and cheaper.

>But you might alternatively think it means (which is quite different):
>2. The top two among {R1, R2, R3, D1, D2, D3, G1, G2} will advance to
>the general election, which will have at most 2 candidates.

Remember, this law does not make cities do
anything. A city could presumably implement this, but why?

>It is not obvious which of these two, quite different, meanings the
>bill intends.

Quite simply, it doesn't apply to Tucson. One of
the bill's proponents said that specifically.

>Which does it mean? The precise wording in the bill is "the primary
>or first election"
>repeated twice. The key word would appear to be "the" as opposed to
>the word (which was not used) "a" or "each."
>Due to this, I conclude that meaning 2 is intended, and further it
>this is intended to
>not to easily be realized by a casual reader.
>In short, they are trying to con you.

No. Very unlikely. There you go again, Warren,
making up stuff that is Bad. No, I assume that
the "primary" is simply that, and that municipal
elections are commonly -- I've done no researtch
on this specifically -- conducted as provided in
the voting code, more than 30 days prior to the
general election. It's a primary in a runoff
system, but not the kind of primary that can
actually elect. Instead, it routinely elects the
two candidates in the general election. This non
partisan, so there is no favoring of major
parties. My guess is that generally, the parties
stay out of these elections. They don't endorse candidates, I suspect.

It's obvious that the bill is contemplating what
is common in Arizona: there is a "primary or
first election" which is held at least 30 days in
advance of the general election. It's nonpartisan
*everywhere* except Tucson, and thus it's a
single primary. Tucson runs primary elections for
each party. The bill simply doesn't deal with that contingency.

>The Democratic blogger Abd found (whom I thought incoherent) called this
>bill a "Republican election-rigging scheme."

I agree.

>I am now suspecting (even more cynically than before) that the blogger
>is correct.
>In Arizona, the bulk of the voters are Republican, since it is a
>Republican state.
>That means there will be more Republican primary voters than Democratic.
>That means it is highly likely that the top two finishers in the
>primary will both be Republicans. In such a case there therefore
>will never be a Republican vs Democrat head-to-head race. There will
>instead be a Republican vs Republican race in the general election.

That is simply not how nonpartisan elections
work. First of all, Democrats do win in lots of
places in Arizona. But that's for state
legislative office, and party affiliation is on
those ballots. Municipal elections, as in many places, are non-partisan.

In nonpartisan election towns, people often don't
know -- and don't care -- about the "political
affiliation" of candidates. They care about how
they believe these *individuals* will run the
city. It's not a partisan issue, as such.

Basically, if partisan affiliation is important,
looking at voter registration figures that I've
seen (only Tucson, really), very unlikely that
the top two would both be from one party. But if
they were, expecially if it's Approval Voting, so what?

>So I'm now leaning toward the hypothesis this IS an election-rigging
>scheme -- and not about approval voting per se at all, that is merely
>its convenient disguise.

Looking at the history of the fellow who proposed
it, nah. Notice that the Republicans are not monolithic.

>In any event it is stunning how the wording on this bill was (at best)
>highly confusing.

It was confusing to us because we did not know
what the systems in use in Arizona are, how the
elections work, existing. The law is written in
contemplation of nonpartisan municipal election
primaries *only*, and you are thinking about
partisan elections, which the law simply doesn't cover. At all.

You may also need to know that the Arizona
legislature would like to, ah, *encourage* Tucson
to drop it's partisan municipal elections. They
tried to force it, but the courts rules that
municipalities have the legal right to do this. No matter how foolish!

This measure *might* be supported in some way
because it *could* encourage Tucson to save a
boatload of money by dropping the partisan
elections. That would actually make sense. It's
not going to change the actual politics of
Tucson, except to remove *Party influence* from
municipal elections. Look, if I were a Republican
living in Tucson, I'd register in the Democratic Party. Why not?

>In support of this theory, I mention Abd's finding that roughly 90% of AZ's
>city/town elections are nonpartisan (currently) which -- if that means
>that they already
>have all-in-one-pot primaries -- supports my new hypothesis.

No, that was a misreading. 90% of the Arizona
*population* is in towns using nonpartisan
elections. Tucson is the second-largest town in
Arizona. According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_and_towns_in_Arizona
there are 91 cities or towns in Arizona. So as to
elections, Tucson would represent 1/91, or a bit more than 1%.

I decided to look at some cities.

Phoenix has a Democratic mayor, who won in a runoff election.

http://phoenix.gov/citygovernment/elect/elections/index.html
>The City of Phoenix conducts elections for city
>voters to elect the Mayor and the Council
>Members who represent the eight geographic
>Council districts of the City, and to approve or
>reject ballot propositions that pertain to the City of Phoenix.
>
>The regular Phoenix elections for Mayor and City
>Council are held in August and November (Runoff)
>of odd-numbered years. The terms of City Council
>members are staggered; therefore the next regular elections are as follows:
> * August 27, 2013 – to elect Council Members in Districts 2, 4, 6 and 8.
> * August 25, 2015 – to elect the Mayor and
> Council Members in Districts 1, 3, 5 and 7.
>
>Special elections may be called by the City
>Council or as required by law. State law permits
>special elections to be held on only four dates each year.
>
>City Clerk Annexation and Elections staff 1. March (second Tuesday)
>2. May (third Tuesday)
>3. August (tenth Tuesday before the first
>Tuesday after the first Monday in November)
>4. November (first Tuesday after the first Monday)
>
>Early voting continues to be the most popular
>way for Phoenix voters to cast their ballots,
>with between 88% and 96% of all ballots cast at
>the last three citywide elections being cast by early ballot.

Are these partisan elections? It's lookling like
not.
http://phoenix.gov/cityclerk/services/electinfo/clist.html
has information about an upcoming city council
election, and there are lots of candidates and no
party affiliations listed. Individual candidates
have a certification on file, it doesn't mention party affiliation.

What is being used now is runoff voting, I found
from the City Code. The primary *can* elect. They
only hold the runoff if no candidate gains a
majority, and then it is top-two. So the state
option is an improvement in one way, but it would also cost more, sometimes.

Then I looked at Chander, population 236,123.
Nonpartisan, apparently. Top two runoff, primary elects if a majority.

And then a yet smaller town, Prescott Valley, population 39,843.
http://www.pvaz.net/Index.aspx?page=273#Election%20of%20Mayor%20and%20Council

Same. Primary can elect, runoff held if no majority.

So HB2518 is providing cities with an
alternative. The odd thing is that they don't
also allow, explicitly, a single election. But
the runoff system will guarantee a majority.

Did anyone talk with the sponsor of this Approval
Voting bill? Certainly Andrew Jennings was at two hearings.

>I also mention the following bit of recent Arizona history.
>"Proposition 121" would have enacted an "open primary" in Arizona meaning
>there is not "a Republican primary and a Democratic Primary and a
>Green Primary";
>instead there is just one combined, all in one
>pot, primary, open to all voters
>and all candidates. The top 2 finishers in it go on to the general election.
>The full text of prop 121 is here:
> http://rangevoting.org/AZprop121.pdf
>The voters of Arizona rejected prop 121 in November 2012,
>instead choosing to stay with a partisan primary system.

This is radically different. That Proposition was
targeted *only at partisan elections,* where the
party affiliation is on the ballot. That is where
maximum damage can be done, especially in, say, a
gubernatorial election. HB2518 only refers to
*municipal elections*, all of which are nonpartisan except one.

>So it would appear that the intent of HB 2518 is to somewhat enact
>prop 121 anyway, sneaking around the voter rejection to implement it
>via a "back door."

No. Warren, that's crazy. HB2518 doesn't apply to
partisan elections, at all. The effect will be radically different.

>Computer simulations (but which completely ignored parties) indicate the
>election system with
>1. all-in-one-pot first round = top 2 approval winners,
>2. second round = 2-candidate runoff,
>is a very good system regret-wise, in spite of seeming a bit of a kludge.
>And compared to prop 121, HB 2518 is superior in the sense it uses
>approval voting
>(prop 121 did not) in the primaries.

Yes. It should be quite good, except for one
fact, which we should be prepared for. Most
voters will *not* add additional approvals,
*especially* in nonpartisan elections. Ranked
Approval (Bucklin) is far more likely to encourage this.

What it looks like to me is that the
municipalities have great freedom in choosing
their election system, in spite of some regulation by the state.

>So: should we (or anybody) support HB 2518?
>If my guess is correct that 90% of AZ elections
>affected, already currently are
>1. all-in-one-pot first round = top 2 plurality winners,
>2. second round = 2-candidate runoff,
>then the sole change will be plurality->approval, which is an improvement.

Not exactly. What I know is that HB2518

1. Only affects municipalities which implement it.
2. 99% of *municipal elections* are non-partisan.
3. Every one of these nonpartisan systems I've
looked at uses top-two runoff, if no majority is found in the primary.
4. Yes, making that primary approval and
mandating a runoff -- always -- will improve performance, at some cost.

It is unclear why the runoff was made mandatory.
It's very possible that cities could decide to
accept the majority approval of only one candiate
in the primary, or the "most votes" if multiple
majorities, or require a runoff of the top two if
more than one gains a majority, or if no candidate gains a majority.

That would, by the way, make the system very
clearly compliant with the Majority Criterion,
people have otherwise argued about it, and about
the supposed hazards of multiple approvals with
multiple majorities, due to uninformed strategic voting.

I'm suspecting that the municipalities could
tweak this however they like. But I don't know
that, and certainly don't know what's been tried in Arizona.

>Meanwhile the 10% of AZ elections (such as Tucson) which were not of
>that form, will be forced to abandon their partisan primary systems.

No, it's 1% of elections. They happen to involve about 10% of the *population.*

> Is that an improvement?
>I don't know, but the computer simulations that ignore partytude, say yes.

Basically, Warren, HB2518 itself does nothing to
Tucson, unless Tucson decides to use the system,
which would clearly require Democratic Party
approval, unless Tucson's voters run an initiative.

Look instead, Warren, at all those possible
Approval elections that could now exist. Those
are nonpartisan, and would now be running a
system which is theoretically highly effective.
One of the real benefits here is possibly the
mandatory second election. That really does make
this a form of Top-two Range Runoff, which, as
you know, outperforms Range with real voters.
(I.e., some level of "strategic voting.")

I'm somewhat wondering, "Why didn't we think of this?"

Combine this with mail balloting for the first
election, the expense argument against runoff could be whacked.

Tweak it further with ranked approval, i.e.,
Bucklin, it could also made Condorcet-compliant.
The key is that second election!

Quite a few North Carolina towns use a runoff
voting system that is an early election, with a
runoff if needed in the general election. It
addresses the argument about low turnout in
runoffs. People then argue that the turnout in
the primary is low, but where I looked, it wasn't
that low, and most people don't even think of how
a low-turnout election actually pushes results
toward Range, because those who *care* are more likely to vote.

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 02:40 PM 3/17/2013, Warren D Smith wrote:
>HB 2518 says each city/town "may" enact the new approval system HB
>26518 has in mind.
>
>The key word is "may" not "must."
>
>Hence, a town like Tucson could choose to stay with its current
>system if it did not like the one HB 2518 proposes.

Right. There is, currently, no other town "like Tucson" in Arizona,
that I found sourced. Likely to be true.

It may also be true that towns could do something *different*.
Apparently they do have flexibility. The legislature tried to
disallow Tucson's partisan elections and failed, legally. Tucson won in court.

However, my own question is why Tucson bothers. Holding partisan
elections requires official recognition of political parties, and,
then, some sort of political party nomination process. As it is in
other towns, candidates declare they are residents and are runnning,
and that's that. But Tucson, because it has partisan elections, runs
separate partisan primaries, four of them. I.e, D,R,G,L.

>In view of this, I think the cynical hypothesis that HB 2518 is merely
>"a Republican election-rigging scheme" is unjustified.

Yup. Glad to see you dropping it.

> I think its
>effect on towns that use the same scheme but with plurality not
>approval, will be: improvement. Its effect on towns which
>have partisan primaries will be: giving those towns another option.
>
>So, my current guess is: one should support HB 2518.

Bingo. So, the mystery: why did the Democratic Party members of the
House vote *monolithically* to oppose this bill? What's wrong with it?

[Warren D Smith]

>Bingo. So, the mystery: why did the Democratic Party members of the House vote >*monolithically* to oppose this bill? What's wrong with it?

--well, those Dems might have had similar confusion to me.
(I.e. yet another possible hypothesis.) I conjecture than in every
attempt to reform voting, one side will assume the other is trying to
pull a fast one (whether true or not).

Also as a side note, these so-called "nonpartisan elections" are strange to me.
Wherever I've lived, you always know their party affiliation on the ballot.
My initial instinct is, more info is better, so removing that info
from the ballot is crazy.
But perhaps removing it forces the "lazy voters" who would have just
voted based on party, to actually be at least a little non-lazy (e.g.
they'd have to find out their party by themselves meanwhile probably
finding out some other info) in which case we might,
counter-intuitively, get better election results by not putting this
info on the ballot.
How can this question be objectively decided?

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 07:52 PM 3/17/2013, Warren D Smith wrote:
> >Bingo. So, the mystery: why did the Democratic Party members of
> the House vote >*monolithically* to oppose this bill? What's wrong with it?
>
>--well, those Dems might have had similar confusion to me.
>(I.e. yet another possible hypothesis.) I conjecture than in every
>attempt to reform voting, one side will assume the other is trying to
>pull a fast one (whether true or not).
>
>Also as a side note, these so-called "nonpartisan elections" are
>strange to me.
>Wherever I've lived, you always know their party affiliation on the ballot.
>My initial instinct is, more info is better, so removing that info
>from the ballot is crazy.

This is very common in the U.S. for municipal elections. Political
parties tend to be organized based on larger issues, at least
state-wide or national. In cities, people are much closer to the candidates.

I'm generally a supporter of the Democratic Party. But the idea that
a Democrat would be better as Mayor of my town than a Republican,
ipso facto, is crazy. Maybe in some general sense, okay. But the
*variation* among Democrats is so great, some are basically idiots.

Generally, when there are partisan elections, there is then party
process to determine a party candidate.

>But perhaps removing it forces the "lazy voters" who would have just
>voted based on party, to actually be at least a little non-lazy (e.g.
>they'd have to find out their party by themselves meanwhile probably
>finding out some other info) in which case we might,
>counter-intuitively, get better election results by not putting this
>info on the ballot.
>How can this question be objectively decided?

I don't see *anything* broken in municipal nonpartisan elections,
that would be fixed by adding party designation, except maybe one thing.

Interesting. San Francisco elections are nonpartisan. As a result,
vote transfers don't work as in partisan elections. IRV works in a
two-party system; in nonpartisan elections, unless there is some
factor linking candidates (like party or ethnicity), voters tend to
vote in ways that don't change the results from Plurality.

So, if you want IRV to work, hold partisan elections. You also need a
strong two-party system with no third party that can come close to
challenging one of the two majors.

[Clay Shentrup]

On Sunday, March 17, 2013 12:11:29 AM UTC-7, Warren D. Smith (CRV cofounder, http://RangeVoting.org) wrote:

--No, 14 yes loses to 3+13=16 no.

No, there's such a thing as "not voting".

Expected yes = (31/36)*17 = 14.6

Expect no = 13 + ((1/36)*17) = 13.5

Why is that "promising"? Well, it is disgusting and putrid and confirms all my worst cynical theories. (I keep getting more cynical the longer I work on voting). But never mind that.
The thing is, in EVERY state where one party is in charge and the other is struggling, presumably the majority party would support Approval (or Range=Score?) voting, while the minority will oppose this reform. That means this reform will have good chances!

I agree with you that this is great news, and depressing news at the same time. 

[Clay Shentrup]

It was my understanding that this bill only applied to non-partisan races, like the Colorado SB13-065.

[Clay Shentrup]

On Sunday, March 17, 2013 9:34:23 PM UTC-7, Clay Shentrup wrote:

It was my understanding that this bill only applied to non-partisan races, like the Colorado SB13-065.

Ah, Andy explained what Warren meant about Tucson. It's the only city that doesn't use the "jungle primary", but the bill applies to all cities. 

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

Right. That is, it *allows* all cities to implement an Approval
primary, top two, instead of the present runoff voting primary that
can terminate with a win if a majority is found. It explicitly
disregards majority in the primary, but since the runoff only has two
candidates, there is presumably some kind of majority in the runoff.
They neatly avoided dealing with the possibility of multiple
majorities due to unstrategic multiple approvals, by advancing the top two.

It's really quite good, almost as good as Bucklin, and it *is* top
two runoff Range, just Range 1. This method actually beats Arrow's theorem.

(Using Bucklin would encourage additional approvals. However, I have
not looked at the implications of top two.)