Bernie Sanders doesn't understand IRV

[Clay Shentrup]

This is from FairVote's site, and I cannot independently verify that Bernie Sanders actually said it, so...take that for what you will.

---

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders

Testimony to the Vermont Senate Government Operations Committee, March 15 2007.

I'll be very brief. Let me just say a couple words. I think as elected officials, one of our obligations is to do everything that we can to expand democracy to bring more people into the political process; make sure that there's serious debate about the issues; to make sure that every vote is counted accurately -- not a problem in Vermont but certainly a problem around the country.

In terms of the issues that we're dealing with today I think there are two main issues. Number 1, I believe that we feel better about the situation when we know that the person who is elected ends up having a majority of the votes. And one of the problems that has existed in Vermont for many many years is that if we have a number of candidates running for governor -- I was once involved in that situation in '86 -- it turns out that the legislature is obligated to elect that person. And I think there's some concern that is would be a disaster if the legislature ended up electing a person who did not get more votes than other candidates on election day. And Instant Runoff addresses that issue.

There's another issue that I think is equally important. And all of us as elected officials have heard people say, "You know, I'm not going to vote, or I'm not really enthusiastic about the elections, because I really want to vote for candidate A, and I think candidate A can't win. And if I vote for candidate A, then candidate C, the person I least want to be elected, is likely to win. I'm going to be quote unquote wasting my vote. So I'm not going to vote, or vote with a lack of enthusiasm", and I think that's a serious problem. We want people to go into the voting booth and think, "I'm really excited about my candidate, and even if my first choice can't win, I want the whole world to know that I agree with his or her position on the issues, and I hope that in years to come that candidate will get more support. I'm enthusiastic about candidate A. But if candidate A doesn't win, I'm going to cast my second ballot for candidate B, because I really don't want candidate C. And I think Instant Runoff allows people more options in that sense. It allows people to vote for what they really want without worrying about the possibility of them getting what they really don't want.

So count me in as somebody who strongly supports Instant Runoff. I know that is has worked well in Burlington in the last mayoral election. Many people felt pretty good about it there. And we know that is has also worked well in California, Minnesota, Maryland, and other areas as well. So I just want to congratulate the committee for taking a hard look at this important issue and I hope you'll give it serious consideration.  

[Warren Koch]

Has anyone sent research making the case for Approval voting instead of IRV to the Sanders camp?  Could be important down the line to get them on the right track now (and maybe even make the case for Ranged, but that's a little bold).  If he wins - huge chance for voting reform, and he might be less inclined to deviate from his election mandate then - so best to start right now.  Center of Election Science is a pretty respectable source - could we send it out in some Official capacity?  Maybe with support from other voting reform groups (whoever they might be)?  I'm betting just discussing it on the https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/ subreddit would be a good start - and someone could probably pass it on from there (assuming we can convince the subreddit first).

P.S. long-time lurker first-time poster, doing a Masters in voting / group decision making.  Warren D. Smith you're my namesake and hero - you surly devil, you.

- Warren Koch  

[Warren D Smith]

to Warren Koch:
1. feel free to try to get thru to Sanders camp. My experience is, I
cannot get thru to
any presidential "camp," but that does not prove it impossible. It
suggests you have
to have a big edge, though, over the other attemptors. Like if your
first name were "Charles & David" you'd probably get thru to a lot of
camps.
2. Where are you studying for the masters?



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

[Warren Koch]

True, trying to "get thru" based on authority/name recognition probably won't go too far, even if the name is "Center of Election Science" (Koch brothers might actually not work on this camp - the dark side is too strong with them).  Still, it's a very grassroots-based movement with some fairly active followers, so they might be willing to re-examine their beliefs on IRV vs Approval - given good evidence.  Get enough of them on board and that might just reach Bernie.  Worst case - you're at least convincing a bunch of new, actively political people to hop aboard the Approval train.

I'm studying at the University of Victoria, under Valerie King.  No specific election science program, just an interest in the field and a helpful prof.  It's been a bit too self-directed though - not so sure how qualified this committee is going to be by the end.  Still, I'm hoping I can squeeze a masters out by next spring.

So what might be the best, most-concise argument for Approval vs IRV? I know you have one prepared somewhere on rangevoting.org.  I can pass it along with a nod to CES if you'd like, if there's no more "official" route to do this with.  

-W

[Aaron Hamlin]

You've got an e-mail coming your way, Warren K.