Re: Voter Choice 2007 Interim Task Force - First Meeting
Jan Kok
I will participate in the meetings.
A few suggestions:
* Is there any reason _not_ to make communications such as this
public? I suggest / invite all of you to subscribe to the unofficial
news group (mailing list) at
http://groups.google.com/group/COVoterChoice
This news group can provide two way communication with the interested
public. The group has been in existence since January and includes
several voting methods experts, including a guy who is or was a member
of the Proportional Representation Society in Australia. If all the
committee members subscribe, then it also provides a simple means for
contacting all the committee members, by simply sending a message to
COVote...@googlegroups.com . If committee members would prefer to
have a mailing list that only committee members can post to, we could
easily set up such a list.
* In any case, I'd ask John and others to routinely cc
COVote...@googlegroups.com on all committee communications unless
there is a good reason not to.
* Several of us are quite gung-ho about voting reform. That being the
case, why not at least investigate whether we can do something to
improve (get rid of spoiler effects, wasted vote dilemma, wrong
winners, etc.) the Nov 2008 election? It seems to me that
investigating voting reform for 2008 would add very little to our
effort. The same issues need to be considered, regardless of when the
voting methods might be implemented.
In other words, I propose that one or more AVMs be considered for
adoption for Nov 2008, as part of the committee's tasks.
* Finally, I strongly suggest that the last 11 words be dropped from
the definition of "Advanced Voting Methods":
"Advanced Voting Method (AVM) means a voting method that allows an
elector to indicate a preference for more than one candidate in an
election ==> and that determines the winner of the election by
majority vote <==."
Why drop those words?
* The phrase or concept of "majority vote" is _meaningless_ for
proportional representation methods. But none of us voting reformers
want to eliminate PR methods from consideration.
* "Majority vote" makes good sense when there are only two candidates
in an election, but how do you define it in a way that makes sense for
elections with three or more candidates?
* Even IRV can't guarantee to pick a winner that is supported by a
majority of voters. For example, some of the San Francisco Board of
Supervisors IRV elections chose a winner who got a majority of the
first-choice votes. Considering those BoS elections where the winner
_didn't_ get a majority of 1st-choice votes, NONE of those elections
chose a winner who got a majority of the 1st + 2nd + 3rd choice votes.
The main reason was that San Francisco IRV elections only allow voters
to specify 3 choices. Allowing voters to specify a 4th, 5th, etc.
choice would make it more likely that the winner would get a "majority
vote". But allowing 4th, 5th, etc. choices takes more ballot space,
and Colorado ballots are already very large.
* "Majority vote" is not a very good criterion for choosing voting
methods. Consider this scenario:
34% Left>Center>Right (34% of voters prefer Left 1st, Center 2nd, Right 3rd)
17% Center>Left>Right
15% Center>Right>Left
34% Right>Center>Left
Center has the fewest 1st-choice votes (32%) and is eliminated. The
ballots are redistributed, and Left wins with 51% of the ballots - a
slight majority. But look: 66% of the voters - a much larger majority
- prefer Center over both Left. And 66% of the voters prefer Center
over Right. Thus, Center is a much more logical winner in this
situation. But IRV chooses Left.
So, a voting method can choose a winner by "majority vote" and still
make a poor choice.
* I would suggest that social utility or overall voter satisfaction
are better criteria for choosing voting methods. We want to choose a
practical election method that maximizes overall voter satisfaction
with the election outcome, over many elections, right? However, there
are also problems with using "overall voter satisfaction" as a
criterion for choosing voting methods. So I don't recommend replacing
the phrase referring to "majority vote" with some other phrase
referring to "overall voter satisfaction" or the like.
* The problem with Plurality Voting, which all of us voting reformers
dislike, is that it allows voters to express a preference for only one
candidate. IRV, Approval, Range, and Proportional Voting all allow
voters to express their opinions about more than one candidate. Thus,
if we define "Advanced Voting Method (AVM) means a voting method that
allows an elector to indicate a preference for more than one candidate
in an election," that disqualifies Plurality Voting as an AVM but
comfortably allows IRV, Approval, Range and most types of Proportional
Voting.
Cheers,
- Jan
Dave Ketchum
> John, et al,
>
...
> * Several of us are quite gung-ho about voting reform. That being the
> case, why not at least investigate whether we can do something to
> improve (get rid of spoiler effects, wasted vote dilemma, wrong
> winners, etc.) the Nov 2008 election? It seems to me that
> investigating voting reform for 2008 would add very little to our
> effort. The same issues need to be considered, regardless of when the
> voting methods might be implemented.
>
> In other words, I propose that one or more AVMs be considered for
> adoption for Nov 2008, as part of the committee's tasks.
>
A worthy goal - not clear whether such is achievable so fast.
> * Finally, I strongly suggest that the last 11 words be dropped from
> the definition of "Advanced Voting Methods":
>
> "Advanced Voting Method (AVM) means a voting method that allows an
> elector to indicate a preference for more than one candidate in an
> election ==> and that determines the winner of the election by
> majority vote <==."
Agreed those words need dropping. If true preference is 35A 33B 32C, then
A properly gets elected.
Suggest looking for a replacement that emphasizes getting true preference
elected.
>
> * I would suggest that social utility or overall voter satisfaction
> are better criteria for choosing voting methods. We want to choose a
> practical election method that maximizes overall voter satisfaction
> with the election outcome, over many elections, right? However, there
> are also problems with using "overall voter satisfaction" as a
> criterion for choosing voting methods. So I don't recommend replacing
> the phrase referring to "majority vote" with some other phrase
> referring to "overall voter satisfaction" or the like.
And agreed the search should be for better words than mentioned here.
I would include Range nd Condorcet as worthy of consideration, exclude IRV
for having too many problems, and exclude Approval for lack of ability.
>
> Cheers,
> - Jan
--
da...@clarityconnect.com people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.
Jan Kok
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: John Kefalas <jkefal...@frii.com>
Date: Jun 15, 2007 1:09 PM
Subject: Voter Choice 2007 Interim Task Force - First Meeting
To: john.kefa...@state.co.us
Cc: Natalie Menten <c9...@wmconnect.com>, Dana Williams
<dana.j....@sos.state.co.us>, Jan Kok <jan.k...@gmail.com>,
Karen Long <kl...@co.adams.co.us>, Renee Wright <rwri...@yahoo.com>,
"Rep. James Kerr" <james.ke...@state.co.us>, Rick VanWie
<rickv...@comcast.net>, Ronald Forthofer <rfort...@comcast.net>,
Scott Doyle <sdo...@larimer.org>, Trena Anastasia
<tr...@lamar.colostate.edu>, Travis Gasper
<Travis...@state.co.us>, Kirk Mlinek <kirk....@state.co.us>
June 15, 2007
Dear Voter Choice Task Force Members,
First of all, I want to express my appreciation for your willingness
to serve on the Voter Choice 2007 Interim Task Force and secondly
provide you with details of our first meeting. This meeting is
scheduled for Wednesday, June 27, 1 - 3 PM in Room 0109 of the State
Capitol. All eleven members, with the exception of Scott Doyle,
Larimer County Clerk and Recorder, have indicated that this date/time
works. I am asking that Scott participate in this meeting via his
e-mail responses to the agenda items and any other input he wishes to
provide. For those of you not entirely familiar with the State
Capitol, parking is a little tricky so please plan accordingly and let
me know if I can be of any assistance and any questions you may have.
These meetings are open to the public and there will likely be
community members present. Do you think we should allow for public
input at this first meeting? I will be sending an electronic notice
to individuals who have expressed interest in the work of the task
force. I am including some information below about task force mission
and items listed in HB07-1162 for us to examine. Please confirm your
participation and share your ideas.
Proposed 6/27 Agenda:
Introductions - Getting to Know Each Other
Review of Task Force Mission and Goals
Specifc Voting Reform Topics to be Investigated
Processes, Decison Making, Communication, 2007 Meeting Schedule
Other? Public Input?
John M. Kefalas
State Representative, House District 52
State Capitol, 200 East Colfax, Denver, CO 80203
604 Sycamore Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521
303-866-4569 (o), 970-221-1135 (h), 720-254-7598 (c)
________________________________
The Voter Choice Interim Task Force is hereby established for the
purpose of studying Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) and other advanced
voting methods that will promote majority rule as a fundamental
principle of representative democracy.
Advanced Voting Method (AVM) means a voting method that allows an
elector to indicate a preference for more than one candidate in an
election and that determines the winner of the election by majority
vote. AVM includes but is not limited to IRV, approval voting, range
voting and proportional voting.
The Voter Choice Interim Task Force shall consist of 11 members:
· Two Representatives of Major Political Parties
o Rick VanWie (D-Denver)
o Natalie Menten (R-Littleton)
· Two Representatives of Minor Political Parties
o Jan Kok (Libertarian-Fort Collins)
o Ron Forthofer (Green-Longmont)
· Two Unaffiliated Electors
o Renee Wright, (Denver)
o Trena Anastasia (Fort Collins)
· Two County Clerks and Recorders or Equivalent Officers
o Scott Doyle (R-Larimer County)
o Karen Long (D-Adams County)
· Two Members of the General Assembly
o Rep. John Kefalas (D-Fort Collins)
o Rep. Jim Kerr (R-Jefferson)
· Secretary of State or Designee
o Dana Williams (Communications & Legislative Affairs,
Department of State)
The Voter Choice Interim Task Force shall:
· Study advanced voting methods
· Analyze the requirements for implementing AVM including:
o Public education;
o Voting equipment and technology
o Ballot designs
o Costs of using AVM in elections for local, state and federal
offices; and savings due to the elimination of primary elections and
avoiding conventional runoff elections
· Determine the level of public support for a change in voting methods
· Review the experience of other states in conducting elections
using AVM
· Recommend statutory changes to conduct a pilot project using
AVM and subsequently to implement AVM in all elections for state and
federal offices
· Make recommendations on making all voting systems used in the
state compatible with AVM by 2010, including a review of the
availability and cost of necessary voting equipment
· Make recommendations to the governing bodies and designated
election officials of political subdivisions of the state on preparing
to conduct an election using AVM
· Consider changes to the state's statutes governing access to
the ballot for presidential candidates
The Voter Choice Interim Task Force shall present a report on its work
to the General Assembly and the Secretary of State no later than
January 8, 2008.