Fallout
Log In
Username

Password

Remember Me



Search Web Pages




Rank Order Voting

Alternative Electoral Methods

"Satisfaction Approval Voting" is a proportional representation approval voting method, devised by political scientist Steven J. Brams, Department of Politics, New York University and D. Marc Kilgour, Department of Mathematics, Wilfrid Laurier University. Unlike instant runoff voting, Satisfaction Approval Voting (SAV) can use existing ballot layouts, is precinct-summable (additive), and treats all voters equally and fairly. Satisfaction Approval Voting was presented at the January 2010 Midwest Political Science Association Conference.
http://conference.mpsanet.org/Online/Sections.aspx?section=24&session=16

http://electionmathematics.org/em-IRV/SatisfactApprovalVoting-BramsKilgour.pdf

Party List voting is a popular proportional system of representation used in European countries.

Voter Rights Removed by Instant Runoff Voting and Single Transferable Voting

IRV/STV are the only alternative voting methods that fail more of Arrow’s Fairness criteria than plurality voting does because they are non-monotonic. In other words, increasing the number of votes for a candidate may cause that candidate to lose, whereas otherwise the candidate would have won! Sometimes staying home and not voting will give voters a more favored result.

1. IRV/STV remove the right cast a vote with a positive effect on a candidate’s chances of winning.

2. IRV/STV remove the right to participate in the final decision of who wins the election by eliminating voters’ ballots prior to the final counting round. The more candidates, the more voters are eliminated prior to the final counting round.

3. IRV/STV remove the right to have one’s votes counted equally and fairly with all other voters’ votes because only voters supporting the least popular candidates as their 1st choice are assured of having their 2nd choice candidate counted when their 1st choice candidate looses.

4. In comparison with top‐two runoff elections, IRV/STV remove the right to elect majority winners. San Francisco had to eliminate its legal right to elect majority winners when it adopted IRV/STV because STV routinely elects winners with far less than 50% of the votes.

5. IRV/STV remove the right to a transparent, verifiable election process with a decentralized, simple counting process that can be easily manually counted and audited.

A well‐funded group called Fair Vote, led by Rob Richie, having close ties to an Internet voting software company, funds misleading promotional ad campaigns about IRV/STV in the United States.

IRV/STV gives voters of the least popular candidates the most power to decide which candidates are eliminated, counting their 2nd choices first. Thus IRV/STV tend to elect extreme right or extreme left candidates, eliminating centrist majority-favorite candidates.

Other alternative, fair, proportional electoral methods are available that do preserve voter rights, precinct count-ability, and election transparency including approval and party list methods. IRV/STV threatens the integrity, accuracy, and fairness of US elections.

For more information see http://www.instantrunoffvoting.us or http://electionmathematics.org or http://rangevoting.org

Instant Runoff and Single Transferrable Voting Methods are Bad Ideas

A lot of myths have been spread about IRV.

IRV does *not* find majority winners or solve the spoiler problem. Just like with the plurality method, you must rank one of the top-two vote getters first or risk helping your least favorite candidate to win the election.

Worse, IRV removes many voter rights that voters have under existing plurality methods.

An informative web site for information on Instant Runoff Voting.
http://www.instantrunoffvoting.us

North Carolina creates a method for counting a special case of Instant Runoff Voting with Optical Scanners.

The Burlington 2009 mayor election was done with IRV and we have the full set of ballots. The Burlington IRV election exhibited practically every pathology in the book, including non-monotonicity Report is posted here: Rangevoting.org/Burlington.html

Realities Mar Instant Runoff Voting - 18 Flaws and 4 Benefits

Instant Runoff Voting takes away votes in multi-seat elections and so was wisely defeated by voters in Cincinnati, OH. See Protect All Your Votes

A Test Drive for Voting Methods by William Poundstone

See also the Voting Simulation Visualizations of Ka-Ping Yee that show graphically the vagaries of Instant Runoff Voting.

Rebecca Mercuri on Instant Runoff Voting

Proponents of Instant Runoff Voting methods for counting ranked choice votes often mischaracterize Kenneth Arrow's theorem in order to justify IRV by claiming, incorrectly, that Arrow's theorem proves that all voting methods are unfair. Kenneth Arrow's theorem itself is posted here.
The Increased Costs of IRV

San Francisco Court Case Opposing Instant Runoff Voting

Reply to San Francisco (defendants)

Reply to San Francisco attempt to bar Plaintiff's expert

Minneapolis Court Case Against IRV

Affidavit of Kathy Dopp

Plaintiffs Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment and Declaratory Judgment

City IRV Ordinance Adopted by Minneapolis

Minneapolis IRV Task Force Report

Plaintiff's Memo in Opposition to City of Minneapolis and FairVote Minnesota Memoranda for Summary Judgement

Plaintiff's Reply Memorandum

Informative Minnesota Voters IRV page

FairVotes' IRV Court Case Web Page page makes the Defendants' briefs available but do not be misled by Defendants' claims because most of them have been previously disproved.


Created on 05/03/2007 03:29 PM by admin
Updated on 11/19/2010 02:23 PM by admin
 Printable Version