RCV in Saint Louis Park MN.

[Phil Uhrich]

I just noticed in the local news that this rich suburb of Minneapolis is potentially planning on switching to RCV (Minneapolis and Saint Paul already have it).
Here is the website detailing the timeline and whatnot:
https://www.stlouispark.org/government/boards-commissions/charter-commission/ranked-choice-voting
They convened a so called 'panel of experts' https://youtu.be/27mDdwn2yYc

They are set to have a public listening session on 3/6 and then a final vote on 3/13.

I noticed somewhere that they already voted to end primary elections so emphasizing that they aren't necessary is a plus.

"If you would like to submit a written comment to the charter commission, please email Melissa Kennedy at mken...@stlouispark.org"

I did:

From: Phil Uhrich [mailto:philu...@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2018 7:26 AM
To: Melissa Kennedy
Subject: Ranked choice voting.

Hi, I live in Minneapolis and I just noticed that Saint Louis Park was looking into Ranked Choice Voting. I watched the video of the expert panel discussing RCV and I wanted to point out some errors that they made and suggest an alternative. One of the questions asked was along the lines of 'what are the potential downsides of RCV?' RCV is nonmonotonic, which is a fancy word for pointing out that there can be some perverse incentives. There are times where you would get a better result by not voting. Say you and a friend would vote 1. Stein 2. Bernie 3. Clinton. The other people that have already voted went:

8X Bernie > Clinton > Stein

7X Stein> Bernie > Clinton

10X Clinton > Bernie > Stein

If you and your friend do vote Bernie gets eliminated in round 1 and then Clinton (your last pick) wins 18 to 9. If you and your friend don't vote then Stein gets eliminated in round 1 and Bernie (your 2nd choice) wins 15 to 10.

Burlington's 2009 Mayoral Election used RCV and it misfired similarly and they voted to repeal it the next year.

Another downside to RCV is that it isn't precinct summable which just adds an extra layer of hassle and room for possible tampering.

There is an alternative I would like to introduce to you called Score Then Automatic Runoff (STAR) voting. The ballot allows voters to give each candidate a score 0-5, a blank counts as a zero and they can give the same score to multiple candidates. The two candidates with the highest scores proceed to the runoff and the winner is the one who more voters scored higher than the other.

STAR captures all of the benefits of RCV like more civil campaigning, elimination of the spoiler effect, removing the need for primaries, and allowing for 3rd parties to have a shot; while avoiding some of the downsides I mentioned. STAR does a better job selecting a consensus pick because it allows voters to express more information on a ballot that is just as simple.

This website goes through and does a better job explaining many of the points I tried to make: http://www.equal.vote/star-vs-irv

I would be happy to answer any other questions you have as well as put you in touch with the people who developed that website and the voting method if you want.

Thanks for your time,

Phil Uhrich

And got a response:
Hi Phil,

Thank you for your comments. They will be shared with the Charter Commission.

Have a great day!

Melissa Kennedy

City Clerk | City of St. Louis Park

5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis Park, MN 55416

Office: 952-928-2840

www.stlouispark.org

Experience LIFE in the Park.

[NoIRV]

I do not like this:

>
> STAR captures all of the benefits of RCV like more civil campaigning, elimination of the spoiler effect, removing the need for primaries, and allowing for 3rd parties to have a shot; while avoiding some of the downsides I mentioned. STAR does a better job selecting a consensus pick because it allows voters to express more information on a ballot that is just as simple.
>

That implies that "IRV eliminates spoilers and gives 3rd parties a chance, but STAR does it better". The truth is "IRV does not eliminate spoilers or give 3rds a chance, but STAR does."

[Phil Uhrich]

So write your own so I don't seem like a one off crank.

[Steve Cobb]

That's quite close to Fargo...

Note that the leadership of CES, FairVote, and Equal Vote agreed not to badmouth each other's preferred voting methods in places with active campaigns running. We all agree that anything is better than the status quo. However, I'm not sure how far that agreement extends (e.g. answering someone's question about a voting method's potential downsides), and to whom (participants in this discussion forum have no formal connection with CES). 

On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 8:51:04 PM UTC+1, Phil Uhrich wrote:

I just noticed in the local news that this rich suburb of Minneapolis is potentially planning on switching to RCV (Minneapolis and Saint Paul already have it).
Here is the website detailing the timeline and whatnot:
https://www.stlouispark.org/government/boards-commissions/charter-commission/ranked-choice-voting
They convened a so called 'panel of experts'  https://youtu.be/27mDdwn2yYc

They are set to have a public listening session on 3/6 and then a final vote on 3/13.

I noticed somewhere that they already voted to end primary elections so emphasizing that they aren't necessary is a plus.

"If you would like to submit a written comment to the charter commission, please email Melissa Kennedy"

I did:

[Phil Uhrich]

Ah. First I've heard of that agreement. Then again it's not like I'm formally attached to any group.

[Phil Uhrich]

They had a community feedback session for IRV. The first person speaking against RCV starts at the 32 min mark. https://youtu.be/WcUNPa2e5yc I skimmed through almost all of it and he was the only person against it. :(

It is becoming increasingly obvious that people hate the status quo and will flock to any alternative with the least resistance.

Until IRV backfires very publicly, which it will do eventually, I'm not optimistic.

Has someone with more effective credentials than me tried contacting the kind of magazines that get sent to every state capital and get read by tons of legislative aids? like: http://www.ncsl.org/ and http://www.governing.com/ ?
I would highly recommend focusing on 0-5 STAR and landing on one similar multi winner version (I think harmonic might scare people off making RRV the best choice here). Other things to focus on would be saving tons of $$$ on eliminating primaries since state budgets are always tight and they aren't likely to want to spend big on voter education without being able to cut costs somewhere.

Has anyone reached out to places like Burlington that have repealed IRV?

[Clay Shentrup]

On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 1:14:44 PM UTC-8, Phil Uhrich wrote:

It is becoming increasingly obvious that people hate the status quo and will flock to any alternative with the least resistance.

Yes. But I think your general antagonism toward IRV is unproductive. This is a huge country with a lot of room for improvement. As bad as things are now, I think IRV is probably making a modest improvement.

If it does backfire, there's some fear that could hurt reform in general. But I think in this era, there's enough awareness of Approval, Score, and lots of other methods that this would probably help the pitch for those systems, rather than being a mere push back to Plurality.