Instant-runoff voting to premiere in Hendersonville

Hendersonville and Cary this fall will become laboratories for a new system of voting in North Carolina that gets rid of poorly attended runoff elections.

[Clay Shentrup]

Actually I don't believe they are using Instant Runoff Voting. They are using an Instant Top-Two Runoff.

But that's an entirely separate issue from eliminating runoff elections. They could eliminate runoff elections _without_ using a different voting method.

Or they could use a much better and simpler method called Approval Voting (which is the simplest form of an even better method called Range Voting).

http://RangeVoting.org/Approval.html

[Joyce McCloy]

I am very concerned about how the IRV proponents are maneuvering some of our cities into this experiment.

So far in North Carolina, the cities that included the public in the decision, Raleigh, Rocky Mount, Asheville, and Atlantic Beach - have all turned IRV down COLD.

But in Cary, this May, the Mayor specifically asked the council to hold a special meeting to let the public comment and ask questions, but the city council members said there wasn't enough time.

So, the national organization Fair Vote has managed to "improve" our democracy without the participation of its "recipients".

Apparently, the truth about IRV cannot withstand the light of day.

IRV only saves money if you don't employ the highly necessary voter education. So, this experiment comes at the cost of the voters!

So who does this experiment benefit, and why is it being pushed so forcefully on North Carolina cities, without citizen input?

For more information on why computer scientists, mathematicians, voters and political consultants oppose IRV, see www.ncvoter.net

[Rob Richie]

For information on why the likes of Howard Dean, John McCain, Dennis Kucinich and Jesse Jackson Jr. support instant runoff voting, why the American Political Science Association uses it, why it's recommended in Robert's Rules of Order for electing leaders by mail and why it's won overwhelming support in its last 10 ballot measures, see www.fairvote.org/irv

Some of the strongest allies for IRV in many states are leaders in election security efforts. Joyce McCloy has strong opinions, but they certainly aren't the only ones out there.

And... it's bizarre to suggest that our organization FairVote somehow pulled the strings in two cities deciding to try out IRV in North Carolina. But we certainly seek to be a useful resource.

[Joyce McCLoy]

IRV distracts from the most important part of elections, making sure that everyone's vote counts.

IRV is a voting system that changes how votes are counted. It isn't instant.

Further, North Carolina's voting machines are not IRV compatible. They can't count the 2nd or 3rd rounds on election night. They cant accumulate the votes.

Some election integrity HAS to be sacrificed in order to hold IRV elections.

IRV increases the complexity of counting the ballots, and extends the chain of custody of the 2nd and 3rd choices.

The decision to try IRV in Cary was very split, and was forced.

I don't know how Hendersonville got into this,I wonder if it was as big a surprise for some folks there as it is for many in Cary?

This has been done pretty much on the QT, and there is little time between now and the election to let the public know they need to have 3 choices for each contest.

IF there were some public hearings on this, then at least some people besides the city council and the green party would know about the change in their elections.

Probably the IRV proponents and the Green party (whose Chairman works for Fair Vote) will be the main people prepared for the upcoming IRV elections.

Since there weren't public hearings, and just a few newspaper articles, its going to be a big surprise to many voters.

Meanwhile, here are some good rebuttals and debunkings to IRV here:

http://rangevoting.org/Irvtalk.html
and
http://mnvoters.org/IRV.htm

Also, folks in Minnesota are working up a good lawsuit to get rid of IRV.

If IRV is to be done in NC, it should be with the utmost efforts to provide transparency -
all raw election results should be made publicly available so that they can be verified and checked by the public.

If this is being done to save money, then people aren't getting the truth about the process - it requires expensive and mass voter education every single election, and it requires printing extra ballots, as well as paying more workers to count the ballots.

[Anthony Lorenzo]

There was a lawsuit in Ann Arbor, MI, by Republicans who lost the election as a result of IRV requiring a majority winner. They used standard plurality voting, where the "spoiler effect" comes into play when there are 3 or more candidates. In this case, the Human Rights Party candidate was dividing the voting block of the left there. With IRV, the Democrat, the first African American mayor was elected instead. Republicans there didn't like it, so they sued as well claiming the same claims brought up in Minnesota, that it unfairly violates the one person, one vote standard. The courts have already ruled on this and set a positive precedent, so the outcome of that is likely a good one for IRV/STV. Minneapolis also uses proportional representation and multi-member elections though, or STV, which is similar, yet different. Cambridge has used STV for over 50 years, and it is a great system. Proportional voting systems in research demonstrate a higher representation for minorities and women, and lord knows we need more women in positions of power.
I started an initiative in Sarasota called SAFE as well as a local city IRV campaign. SAFE petitioned to have voter-verified paper ballots as well as a public hand audit by an indipendant, nonpartisan auditing firm of 5% of votes cast to verify results. I would imagine Joyce is aware of SAFE, being part of the election security movement. The initiative was adopted by 55% of the voters, even though our Supervisor of Elections (SOE), Kathy Dent, was passing out literature about how safe and secure the touch screens were illegally inside precincts. The SOE then sued to have the initiative thrown out, though first to have it removed from the ballot even. She failed to stop the voters from being able to vote on it, but the appellate court agreed with her and threw it out in a 2-1 decision. SAFE, under the fine leadership of Kindra Muntz, is now challenging that ruling to the State Supreme Court. Also, IRV was adopted by Sarasota voters the next year in November with 78% of the vote in a record city turnout with only 12 issues on the ballot, no candidates. Sarasota also limited campaign contributions to $200 and to natural born persons, thereby excluding corporate and business interests from making political contributions.
Fairvote was integral in financing mailers, all of which the local grassroots organization, in this case myself and others commUNITY activists, were involved in the messaging sent out by Fairvote. Fairvote didn't come in and make Sarasota implement IRV, commUNITY activists did, mostly Greens, Libertarians, and some Democrats truth be told. As Republicans are in power in Florida, they have no interest in anything that might upset the status quo, and the SOE is a Republican who has lost 18,000 votes 2 years ago and was publicly exhonerated by the GAO in the eyes of the public.
In Sarasota, the second runoff election costs $1800 per precinct, and there are 21 precincts. That equals a savings of $37,800 every 4 years (when we have our citywide races that always have a runoff) and possibly a runoff for the 3 district seats that involve each 1/3 of the city. As well as paper ballots needing to be printed twice, and stored twice, IRV makes much of the process more efficient. If software costs the city $100,000, they will still reap a savings definitely in 12 years time, and thereafter of many thousands, as election costs continue to rise with inflation as well.
Representatives elected by the people voted to have IRV elections. It was not FORCED on anyone as Joyce claims here. In Sarasota, 78% of the people voted for IRV.

[Anthony Lorenzo]

And contrary to Joyce's assertions that the people don't like IRV, the exit poll data reflects a super majority approve of the new system, and less than 30% wishing to go back to the old system of voting. I would say that is a pretty high approval rating after just the first use. I look forward to seeing how that data evolves as more research is conducted. I think San Francisco is the only city that has had a few IRV election to study so far.
I guess that is where we differ in opinion, Joyce, as the whole point is not just making sure every vote counts, it is just a part of the point. We in the IRV and Full Representation movement understand there is more to the equation that just ensuring the votes are counted. There are all of the following issues that matter:
1. Increasing voter participation: Full representation systems increase voter turnout. runoff elections, compared to IRV elections, have lower statistical turnout. More candidates seems to correlate highly with greater turnout, though i don't have research data on this, i have only observed it in Sarasota in my studies of election results locally.
2. 48% of the ELIGIBLE voting population, not those who don't vote who are registered, don't even bother to register to vote. Felons need to be able to vote. Why don't these people vote? No choices that represent them? I haven't seen any research on this, but i intend to set up some internet polling soon and research it myself.
3. Public financing of elections: we need to get the money out of politics.
4. Banning business and corporate contributions, as well as mandating free air time for all candidates, as well as truly independent debates not sponsored by corporations.
5. DC Statehood and representation in Congress.
The difference between what you are saying and what we are saying is not that voting system security and accuracy/transparency of countint votes are not important, it is just that we feel it is not the ONLY thing that is important.

[Anthony Lorenzo]

And quoting the Range Voting Web Site is like me quoting a Republican site to talk about Democrats. Am I really supposed to expect to find credible information from such an obviously biased source?
Arrow's Theorem states that no voting system is perfect. I wouldn't say IRV is the perfect voting system, I just think it is the best and easiest of the best to explain to people so they get it. I would also say that it is the best method and most widely used, as well as constitutional. Many in the Range Voting movement have the sole goal of electing minor party candidates to office, and they think Range gives minors a better shot. IRV requires a majority winner, and someone with a lot of first choice support, in order to win. Some argue this makes it harder for minor parties to win.
The main difference though is in what is called strategic voting, as IRV has no built in games to it to make a voter vote insincerely: there are mathematically possible yet never manifesting in a real world election potential outcomes where the order you rank your candidates could cause your candidate to win or lose, but they are so improbable it has never happened yet in a real world election. The serious improbability of that scenario therefore doesn't cause voters to vote insincerely. IRV is thought to be the most likely to inspire voters to vote more sincerely.
Range Voting, on the other hand, has some issues. If for instance I am an Obama supporter (since he endorses IRV and introduced legislation to implement it in Illinois as a member of their state congress), then i would give him a 9 (on 0-9 scale). If i also like Nader and McKinney, i woudl also give them a 9. If i like McCain just more than i like the Libertarian, again because he has endorsed IRV, I would give him a 5. Now that is if i was being impartial. Let's say i really wanted Obama to win. If that were the case, then in Range Voting, i would give Obama a 9. If i want to increase his lead the most with my vote, then i would give everyone else a 0, especially McCain. This is strategic voting, and those who vote strategically in a system like this benefit. That seems to be the deficiency in the Range Voting argument.
Joyce, you are being dishonest about the vast amount of voter education that must be done. In Sarasota, they send out a mailer before each election to every registered voter. That is already budgetted, so sending out a pamphlet with instructions on how to use IRV is not more expensive. I doubt you would have to do ANY education to explain it in Sarasota where I have worked to educate the people about IRV. But i can't speak for other larger cities.

[Anthony Lorenzo]

No one claims IRV is instant, not sure why you bring that up here or anywhere. Compared to a runoff a month later, where voting turnout declines especially in poorer communities, and where candidates have to raise money fast and campaign again owing more favors to special interests or favoring the candidates connected to the moneyed interests, IRV is RELATIVELY INSTANT, and thus I feel the name fits. It is instant relative to a runoff, and that much is true and certainly not misleading nor a misnomer.
If IRV were truly an experiment, it would not have been used in Florida in 1906 for primaries. Australia would not have used it now for over 90 years. Ireland would not have used it for over 50 years. Cambridge would not have used the multi-member variation STV (Single Transferrable Vote) for over 50 years, surviving 5 times on the ballot asking the voters if they wanted to repeal it.
In exit poll after exit poll, voters approve, Joyce. We would gladly work with you on developing a sound security plan for all elections, especially IRV and STV elections. Contrary to your tired assertions, security and full representation are not mutually exclusive.
And the second Web Site you cite is your own personal, very biased against IRV for some odd reason, view. Are you kidding? If you have some credible information, I am open to reading it. But i am skeptical, as i studied all the various voting systems for 2 years when I started working on IRV so i would feel comfortable and could explain why I support IRV over the others. I would also support Condorcet, but I find it too complicated to explain. But I don't think any method besides Condorcet is equal or possibly better than IRV.
And certainly Condorcet has a flaw as well, as every system does. But since i am not opposed to Condorcet, that is for you to research, as I obviously don't feel it is a greater flaw than the crappy systems we use already.

[Anthony Lorenzo]

There was a lawsuit in Ann Arbor, MI, by Republicans who lost the election as a result of IRV requiring a majority winner. They used standard plurality voting, where the "spoiler effect" comes into play when there are 3 or more candidates. In this case, the Human Rights Party candidate was dividing the voting block of the left there. With IRV, the Democrat, the first African American mayor was elected instead. Republicans there didn't like it, so they sued as well claiming the same claims brought up in Minnesota, that it unfairly violates the one person, one vote standard. The courts have already ruled on this and set a positive precedent, so the outcome of that is likely a good one for IRV/STV. Minneapolis also uses proportional representation and multi-member elections though, or STV, which is similar, yet different. Cambridge has used STV for over 50 years, and it is a great system. Proportional voting systems in research demonstrate a higher representation for minorities and women, and lord knows we need more women in positions of power.

I started an initiative in Sarasota called SAFE as well as a local city IRV campaign. SAFE petitioned to have voter-verified paper ballots as well as a public hand audit by an indipendant, nonpartisan auditing firm of 5% of votes cast to verify results. I would imagine Joyce is aware of SAFE, being part of the election security movement. The initiative was adopted by 55% of the voters, even though our Supervisor of Elections (SOE), Kathy Dent, was passing out literature about how safe and secure the touch screens were illegally inside precincts. The SOE then sued to have the initiative thrown out, though first to have it removed from the ballot even. She failed to stop the voters from being able to vote on it, but the appellate court agreed with her and threw it out in a 2-1 decision. SAFE, under the fine leadership of Kindra Muntz, is now challenging that ruling to the State Supreme Court. Also, IRV was adopted by Sarasota voters the next year in November with 78% of the vote in a record city turnout with only 12 issues on the ballot, no candidates. Sarasota also limited campaign contributions to $200 and to natural born persons, thereby excluding corporate and business interests from making political contributions.

Fairvote was integral in financing mailers, all of which the local grassroots organization, in this case myself and others commUNITY activists, were involved in the messaging sent out by Fairvote. Fairvote didn't come in and make Sarasota implement IRV, commUNITY activists did, mostly Greens, Libertarians, and some Democrats truth be told. As Republicans are in power in Florida, they have no interest in anything that might upset the status quo, and the SOE is a Republican who has lost 18,000 votes 2 years ago and was publicly exhonerated by the GAO in the eyes of the public.
In Sarasota, the second runoff election costs $1800 per precinct, and there are 21 precincts. That equals a savings of $37,800 every 4 years (when we have our citywide races that always have a runoff) and possibly a runoff for the 3 district seats that involve each 1/3 of the city. As well as paper ballots needing to be printed twice, and stored twice, IRV makes much of the process more efficient. If software costs the city $100,000, they will still reap a savings definitely in 12 years time, and thereafter of many thousands, as election costs continue to rise with inflation as well.

Representatives elected by the people voted to have IRV elections. It was not FORCED on anyone as Joyce claims here. In Sarasota, 78% of the people voted for IRV.

[Anthony Lorenzo]

And contrary to Joyce's assertions that the people don't like IRV, the exit poll data reflects a super majority approve of the new system, and less than 30% wishing to go back to the old system of voting. I would say that is a pretty high approval rating after just the first use. I look forward to seeing how that data evolves as more research is conducted. I think San Francisco is the only city that has had a few IRV election to study so far.
I guess that is where we differ in opinion, Joyce, as the whole point is not just making sure every vote counts, it is just a part of the point. We in the IRV and Full Representation movement understand there is more to the equation that just ensuring the votes are counted. There are all of the following issues that matter:
1. Increasing voter participation: Full representation systems increase voter turnout. runoff elections, compared to IRV elections, have lower statistical turnout. More candidates seems to correlate highly with greater turnout, though i don't have research data on this, i have only observed it in Sarasota in my studies of election results locally.
2. 48% of the ELIGIBLE voting population, not those who don't vote who are registered, don't even bother to register to vote. Felons need to be able to vote. Why don't these people vote? No choices that represent them? I haven't seen any research on this, but i intend to set up some internet polling soon and research it myself.
3. Public financing of elections: we need to get the money out of politics.
4. Banning business and corporate contributions, as well as mandating free air time for all candidates, as well as truly independent debates not sponsored by corporations.
5. DC Statehood and representation in Congress.
The difference between what you are saying and what we are saying is not that voting system security and accuracy/transparency of countint votes are not important, it is just that we feel it is not the ONLY thing that is important.

[Anthony Lorenzo]

Joyce, you are being dishonest about the vast amount of voter education that must be done. In Sarasota, they send out a mailer before each election to every registered voter. That is already budgetted, so sending out a pamphlet with instructions on how to use IRV is not more expensive. I doubt you would have to do ANY education to explain it in Sarasota where I have worked to educate the people about IRV. But i can't speak for other larger cities.
No one claims IRV is instant, not sure why you bring that up here or anywhere. Compared to a runoff a month later, where voting turnout declines especially in poorer communities, and where candidates have to raise money fast and campaign again owing more favors to special interests or favoring the candidates connected to the moneyed interests, IRV is RELATIVELY INSTANT, and thus I feel the name fits. It is instant relative to a runoff, and that much is true and certainly not misleading nor a misnomer.
If IRV were truly an experiment, it would not have been used in Florida in 1906 for primaries. Australia would not have used it now for over 90 years. Ireland would not have used it for over 50 years. Cambridge would not have used the multi-member variation STV (Single Transferrable Vote) for over 50 years, surviving 5 times on the ballot asking the voters if they wanted to repeal it.
In exit poll after exit poll, voters approve, Joyce. We would gladly work with you on developing a sound security plan for all elections, especially IRV and STV elections. Contrary to your tired assertions, security and full representation are not mutually exclusive.
And the second Web Site you cite is your own personal, very biased against IRV for some odd reason, view. Are you kidding? If you have some credible information, I am open to reading it. But i am skeptical, as i studied all the various voting systems for 2 years when I started working on IRV so i would feel comfortable and could explain why I support IRV over the others. I would also support Condorcet, but I find it too complicated to explain. But I don't think any method besides Condorcet is equal or possibly better than IRV.
And certainly Condorcet has a flaw as well, as every system does. But since i am not opposed to Condorcet, that is for you to research, as I obviously don't feel it is a greater flaw than the crappy systems we use already.

[Anthony Lorenzo]

Many in the Range Voting movement have the sole goal of electing minor party candidates to office, and they think Range gives minors a better shot. IRV requires a majority winner, and someone with a lot of first choice support, in order to win. Some argue this makes it harder for minor parties to win.
The main difference though is in what is called strategic voting, as IRV has no built in games to it to make a voter vote insincerely: there are mathematically possible yet never manifesting in a real world election potential outcomes where the order you rank your candidates could cause your candidate to win or lose, but they are so improbable it has never happened yet in a real world election. The serious improbability of that scenario therefore doesn't cause voters to vote insincerely. IRV is thought to be the most likely to inspire voters to vote more sincerely.
Range Voting, on the other hand, has some issues. If for instance I am an Obama supporter (since he endorses IRV and introduced legislation to implement it in Illinois as a member of their state congress), then i would give him a 9 (on 0-9 scale). If i also like Nader and McKinney, i woudl also give them a 9. If i like McCain just more than i like the Libertarian, again because he has endorsed IRV, I would give him a 5. Now that is if i was being impartial. Let's say i really wanted Obama to win. If that were the case, then in Range Voting, i would give Obama a 9. If i want to increase his lead the most with my vote, then i would give everyone else a 0, especially McCain. This is strategic voting, and those who vote strategically in a system like this benefit. That seems to be the deficiency in the Range Voting argument.
Joyce, you are being dishonest about the vast amount of voter education that must be done. In Sarasota, they send out a mailer before each election to every registered voter. That is already budgetted, so sending out a pamphlet with instructions on how to use IRV is not more expensive. I doubt you would have to do ANY education to explain it in Sarasota where I have worked to educate the people about IRV. But i can't speak for other larger cities.
No one claims IRV is instant, not sure why you bring that up here or anywhere. Compared to a runoff a month later, where voting turnout declines especially in poorer communities, and where candidates have to raise money fast and campaign again owing more favors to special interests or favoring the candidates connected to the moneyed interests, IRV is RELATIVELY INSTANT, and thus I feel the name fits. It is instant relative to a runoff, and that much is true and certainly not misleading nor a misnomer.
If IRV were truly an experiment, it would not have been used in Florida in 1906 for primaries. Australia would not have used it now for over 90 years. Ireland would not have used it for over 50 years. Cambridge would not have used the multi-member variation STV (Single Transferrable Vote) for over 50 years, surviving 5 times on the ballot asking the voters if they wanted to repeal it.
In exit poll after exit poll, voters approve, Joyce. We would gladly work with you on developing a sound security plan for all elections, especially IRV and STV elections. Contrary to your tired assertions, security and full representation are not mutually exclusive.
And the second Web Site you cite is your own personal, very biased against IRV for some odd reason, view. Are you kidding? If you have some credible information, I am open to reading it. But i am skeptical, as i studied all the various voting systems for 2 years when I started working on IRV so i would feel comfortable and could explain why I support IRV over the others. I would also support Condorcet, but I find it too complicated to explain. But I don't think any method besides Condorcet is equal or possibly better than IRV.

[Clay Shentrup]

Anthony Lorenzo has made a lot of totally false, or at least misleading, claims here. One noteworthy example is the claim that IRV elects a majority winner. That's totally false. IRV can elect X instead of Y, even though a majority of voters preferred Y over X, <em>and</em> Y got more first-place votes.

http://rangevoting.org/CoreSupp.html

Anthony would love to write off RangeVoting.org by calling it "biased", but the claims on the site are backed by mountains of evidence.

You have to love Anthony's comment that "No one claimed Instant Runoff Voting was instant". LOL

[Anthony Lorenzo]

The majority is of CONTINUING ballots, or ballots with a choice left that has not been eliminated in the rounds of counting. It ALWAYS produces a majority of continuing ballots. Clay Shentrup is a wrong to propose otherwise and ill-informed.

Range Voting doesn't even concern itself with majority winners, which is one problem with the system.

Here, Mr Shentrup argues that there are potential scenarios in which IRV violates the condorcet principle developed by Arrow, and this is true that it is POSSIBLE. Yet it has never happened in a real world election, and Clay always fails to mention that his theoretical flaw has NEVER MANIFESTED in a real world election. But that just wouldn't fit his agenda of opposing IRV.

I have a Web Site, so does Fairvote, and many others that say something else, Clay. Does a Web Site mean one has scientific data or a valid argument? No, it doesn't. I know 17 year olds who can create Web Sites and this doesn't make information accurate or peer-reviewed by other scientists. In fact, the research data that Warren Smith has developed was REJECTED by a peer-reviewed science journal.

I for one will trust the American Association of Political Scientists, the experts, who recommend IRV and use it in their own elections over your biased Web Site.

I called it very appropriately biased. Here are some synonyms for biased:
predisposition, preconception, predilection, partiality, proclivity; bent, leaning. Bias, prejudice mean a strong inclination of the mind or a preconceived opinion about something or someone. A bias may be favorable or unfavorable: bias in favor of or against an idea. Prejudice implies a preformed judgment even more unreasoning than bias, and usually implies an unfavorable opinion: prejudice against a race. 9. predispose, bend, incline, dispose.

Obviously, your site is predisposed to support Range Voting and inherently biased. I am surprised i need to explain what bias means to you and defend an obviously accurate word used to describe Range Voting's Web Site.

[Anthony Lorenzo]

IRV is only instant in reference to runoffs, and instant, as a relative concept, is relative. Relative to runoffs, IRV is instant. Glad to provide you some amusement, Clay.

The lack of a majority you and Joyce continue to bring up is based on the total number of votes cast. Not only that, you all refuse to acknowledge the obvious that these were the first elections IRV was used and a small percentage of voters were not expecting to show up and rank candidates. As the system becomes more familiar, this will decrease and you will likely find more majority won elections by the standards you have created.

In real world elections, runoffs have lower turnouts. Would you compare the majority there to the number of ballots cast in the initial, higher turnout election? no, you consider the majority from the number of ballots cast in the second election. This doesn't mean the ballots cast in the second election didn't determine a majority; it means less people voted in the second round. IRV has a similar issue, especially in its infancy in a new jurisdiction. You continue to harp on this obvious fact as if there is decades of use of IRV in this nation when these were all the first, 2nd and in one case 3rd elections using IRV. But you just want to derail the IRV movement, thus the label of BIASED is applied to you as well as your Web Site.

[Clay Shentrup]

It's good that Anthony here admits that IRV doesn't elect a _real_ majority winner, but instead a candidate who has a majority _after_ other candidates (possibly the wrong ones) have been eliminated.

But he makes the false claim that the problem I brought up has "never happened". In actuality, it happens frequently, like in the 2007 Australian House of Representatives election.
http://rangevoting.org/Aus07.html

I do not know why he brings up real "non-instant" runoff elections, as I am a Range Voting supporter, since the evidence overwhelmingly says Range Voting is far superior to IRV, Borda, Condorcet, etc. For example:
http://rangevoting.org/UniqBest.html

Here are some other refutations of Mr. Lorenzo's misled criticisms:
http://rangevoting.org/Lorenzo.html

[Anthony Lorenzo]

So, in 90 years of use of IRV in THOUSANDS of elections, you can point to one example of this theoretical flaw manifesting. Interesting, yet not one that causes real world strategic voting, especially since polling and advance knowledge of whether changing one's ranking will actually affect the outcome in the way your theory suggests will manifest.

Range Voting has a serious inherent leaning toward strategic voting. The point being if i want my candidate to win, i give them the highest ranking possible, a 9 (1-9 scale). And if i like someone else, yet i really want my candidate to win, i would rank everyone else a 1 to clearly give my candidate an advantage. Range Voting advocates fail to note this in their advocacy and continue to try to gloss over the fact that the system of Range Voting still has some serious incentives to vote insincerely. That is my problem with it, and IRV is the least susceptible to this. I would also say that Condorcet is better as well.

Approval voting has the same flaw and i have seen this manifest in real world elections. In Sarasota citywide elections, for instance, voters are given 2 votes, which they can cast for the two candidates they like (2 are elected citywide, majorities required). In our last citywide runoff election, in the year 2005, there were three candidates in the runoff: 2 incumbent republicans, and one challenger democrat. The Democratic Party put out messages to their constituents to ONLY VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRAT. There were 1500 strategic undervotes where voters only selected the democrat candidate, the candidate with the highest number of runoff votes and one of the 2 winners, and this benefitted them tremendously.

This is very similar to Approval Voting, and here it is, manifesting very obvious flaws.

So Clay is way off base in his analysis of what the real world effects of these voting systems. On paper, lots of things sound good yet when applied to groups of diverse people with agendas and outside forces trying to game the outcome, Approval Voting and Range Voting benefit those who have the ability to get the gaming the system message out and that is not the people. So I for one will continue to promote a tried, true and proven system: Instant Runoff Voting/Ranked Choice voting.