The letters to editor that NY Times published in response to H.Dean pro-IRV op-ed

9 views
Skip to first unread message

Warren D Smith

unread,
Oct 16, 2016, 12:27:21 PM10/16/16
to electionscience, Blake Huber, Frank....@approvalvotingusa.org
Readers discuss the risks and benefits of ranked voting, as proposed
by Howard Dean.

To the Editor: Re “How to Get Beyond Two Parties” (Op-Ed, Oct. 8): I
fully support Howard Dean’s proposal for ranked voting (a k a instant
runoff, a k a the Australian voting method). This would be especially
useful in primary elections, where we often have more than two
candidates.

Often, one is forced to vote for the “second best” for fear of tilting
the election to the worse candidate. In this method, voters can vote
for their first choice without risking “giving the vote away” and
unwittingly supporting the candidate they really do not want. No
voting method is perfect, but this proposal is definitely a more
democratic alternative than the current winner-take-all approach.

DANIEL SZYLD

Philadelphia

The writer is a professor of mathematics at Temple University.

To the Editor: Howard Dean’s objective is laudable, but his choice of
the ranked-choice voting system is not only unlikely to achieve his
objective, but also has many serious faults. He notes that the system
has been in use in national elections in Australia and Ireland, but it
hasn’t got them beyond two parties.

Voting according to my preferences, or even choosing to vote at all,
should not decrease the likelihood of a desirable election outcome.
Yet each of these undemocratic faults can occur in ranked-choice
voting, and not uncommonly in close elections.

Mr. Dean’s objectives would be better served with approval voting, a
simpler system that voids such faults, in which voters can vote for
all the candidates they want to support, the winner being the
candidate with the most support.

ROBERT Z. NORMAN

Hanover, N.H.

The writer is emeritus professor of mathematics at Dartmouth.

To the Editor: Kudos to Howard Dean for supporting ranked voting.
There is little question that if ranked voting were in place today,
nationwide, and if Bernie Sanders were on the ballot, he would be
elected president rather than an unpopular Hillary Clinton or Donald
Trump.

But here’s the conundrum, which is not dissimilar to the Security
Council veto that can be changed only by vote of the five countries
that wield it. How likely is it that ranked voting will be supported
by the two major parties, since it will weaken the very political
stranglehold they perpetuate, whose victim in this election, like Mr.
Dean in an earlier one, was the nontraditional and independent-minded
candidate, Bernie Sanders?

JOSEPH J. SALTARELLI

Wilton, Conn.

To the Editor: Voters already have “more than two options” when
campaigns begin. You can vote for your favored option in the
primaries. If by Election Day most voters have spurned your favored
option, that does not mean you’re being deprived of a chance to vote
your conscience; you already did.

To accept the constraints of the majority’s decision is not to endorse
it but merely to uphold majority rule. Upholding the basic tenet of
democracy should not strain your conscience.

ILYA SHLYAKHTER

Cambridge, Mass.

To the Editor: Howard Dean extols ranked-choice voting without
mentioning its antidemocratic features. The most serious is that it is
“non-monotonic,” which means a voter can raise the ranking of a
candidate, even to first place, and by doing so cause him to lose
because of anomalies in the transfer of votes as candidates are
sequentially eliminated. This is not a rare event but can happen
surprisingly often in close elections. If there is anything
antithetical to a democracy, it’s that giving more support to a
candidate should hurt rather than help.

Mr. Dean mistakenly thinks that ranked-choice voting supports the
principle of majority rule. But this is not true, even when the
sequential elimination of weaker candidates whittles the number down
to two. The reason is that voters who supported weaker candidates can
have all their preferred candidates eliminated, so in the end these
voters are not counted in the contest between the final two.

These and related problems cropped up in the 2009 mayoral race in
Burlington, Vt., which had adopted ranked-choice voting. Burlington
voters voted to repeal it, as have voters in other cities that had
similar unfortunate experiences. Moreover, countries like Australia
that have long used ranked-choice voting have remained essentially
two-party systems.

It makes no sense to adopt a fundamentally flawed voting system when
there are simpler alternatives, like approval voting, that do not
suffer from such failures and would facilitate the entry of new
candidates and parties.

STEVEN J. BRAMS

New York

The writer is a professor of politics at New York University.

To the Editor: Howard Dean’s suggestion that the United States should
adopt ranked-choice voting is long overdue. Australia, whose electoral
system I have studied extensively, has used ranked choice for almost a
hundred years.

Beyond giving voters the ability to take a chance on a third party,
ranked choice would immediately defuse the toxic polarization of our
national political scene by psychologically reframing how we see the
choices we face. Replacing our red-versus-blue Armageddon with
something more nuanced would make us a less angry country almost
overnight.

Ranked choice would also make voting more complicated; this could
overwhelm some voters and depress turnout. Australia deals with this
problem effectively by combining mandatory voting with some ingenious
procedures that simplify the decision process while preserving an
enviable level of freedom of choice. We would do well to learn from
Australia’s example.

MATTHEW G. NAGLER

Livingston, N.J.

The writer is a professor of economics at CUNY.

To the Editor: Why does Howard Dean promote a new system of voting —
ranked choice — when a system has long existed that gives third
parties a real voice in government?

A proportional representation system, used throughout much of the
world, allows third parties representation equal to the percentage of
the popular vote they obtain.

If, say, Socialists get 10 percent, they get 10 percent of the
legislative seats. Then the minority party can, as needed, forge
coalitions with dominant parties, force change and be heard.

What Mr. Dean proposes is the illusion of choice, a Burger King menu
of candidates that, by a process of elimination, ends up with the
winner-take-all results we have now. Such a system guarantees the
marginalization of third parties regardless of their merit.

NEIL MULLIN

Montclair, N.J.

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

Warren D Smith

unread,
Oct 16, 2016, 1:28:30 PM10/16/16
to electionscience, Blake Huber, Frank....@approvalvotingusa.org
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages