Alternative Voting Methods

[jlau...@comcast.net]

On tonight's agenda there are two contrasting proposals for elections to the nine-member DSNC board:

1. Amendments 23-24 revise the algorithm for the single transferable vote (STV) method used in the previous DSNC election, in which the voter had a single first place vote and ranked up to eight further candidates in preferential order.   Under STV a mathematical formula is used to set a quota for electability at a specified fraction of the total vote. Votes received in excess of that fraction are transferred by lot to each voter's next preference until in the DSNC case nine board members are elected by virtue of achieving the set quota.
   
   
2. Amendment 35L adopts the method used for at-large Somerville City Councilors (SCC), in which the voter can cast up to four votes for the four at-large City Council seats. In the DSNC case, this translates into up to nine votes for the nine available board seats. The top nine vote getters are elected. 

 

No voting system is without flaws.  Here are the reasons I believe the Somerville City Council (SCC)  method is better suited to the DSNC board election:

1. Familiarity— Every Somerville voter has used the SCC method for At-large City Councilors.   By contrast, the STV method relies on an algorithm that few understand.
   
   
2. Harmony with the DSNC's four-category quota system.  The DSNC by-laws specify that the board must include at least one member satisfying each of four categories: renter, homeowner, business owner, worker/employee. Under the SCC method, voters have up to nine votes to assemble their own slates satisfying the four categories.  Under STV the ranking of persons has the unintended consequence of ranking the relative importance of the four categories. 
   
   
3. Equality-- Under SCC there are no invidious distinctions entailed in the ranking of persons.  STV is more appropriate-- and is indeed so used-- in multi-party competitions over a large electorate, rather than in small neighborly groups.

4. Replicability-- Under STV the random element in the choice by lot of transferable votes means that if, as specified by the DSNC, ballots are preserved for a year,  it is very unlikely that recounts will produce uniform results.  There is no comparable random element in the SCC method.  
   
   
5. Straightforwardness-- Under SCC one votes for the candidates who in one's view will make their own valuable contribution.  The voter can exercise selective enthusiasm by casting fewer than the full nine votes.  Under STV the voter is tempted into more complicated strategic voting — e.g. second- guessing other voters by giving a low preference to more popular candidates to increase the chances of less popular candidates to garner transferred votes.

       6. Bumping-- The DSNC by-laws require that if any category is unrepresented in the top nine, the highest candidate of an unrepresented category replaces (or "bumps") the lowest vote-getter of a category with more than one representative.  Bumping is less likely than under STV because each voter has the opportunity to give equal weight to candidates representing all four categories: homeowner, renter, business owner, worker.

7. Voter empowerment-- In the DSNC case,  the Somerville City Council method feels more empowering: each voter has up to nine first place votes, versus only one under STV.  This gives voters a chance to form their own preferred slates.

I should note that Somerville has a primary election for offices that have more than two candidates for a given office.   To avoid a two-step process,  both Amendment 35L and 23-24 provide for ranked choice voting  (RCV not STV) for executive offices with more than two candidates.  Amendment 35L has no such provision if there are more than 18 candidates for the 9 board slots, though this could be added.

Note also that for executive offices Amendments 23-24 necessarily accept the principle of one first place vote per office.  

Lee

_________________
Josiah Lee Auspitz
17 Chapel Street 

Somerville, MA 02144 

Landline phone: 617-628-6228 fax: 617-628-9441

Phones do not receive text messages