IRV: No, but we appreciate the debate

IRV: No, but we appreciate the debate

There are 45 comments on the TwinCities.com story from Oct 29, 2009, titled IRV: No, but we appreciate the debate. In it, TwinCities.com reports that:

St. Paul is being treated to an important and spirited debate this fall about how we will vote in future city elections.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at TwinCities.com.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Kathy Dopp

Glenmont, NY

#41 Nov 3, 2009
Tony wrote:
<quoted text>
Kathy - I assure you I care a great deal about election integrity and fairness, that I've done a great deal of research, and that I have no affiliation, paid or unpaid, with Fair Vote Minnesota, yet I still disagree with you on what I consider to be perfectly reasonable and rational grounds.
<quoted text>
Great. Then instead of spreading false about IRV and fabricating "facts" about me, LEARN about how instant runoff voting really works and what IRV/STV really do.

Have you watched all the youtube videos about it linked from here yet since you don't seem to have enough time to studying the reports on it or try it out in a spreadsheet yourself?

http://kathydopp.com/serendipity/index.php...

Or do you only have time to push for IRV, the most unfair method that eviscerates election transparency and causes many more problems than it solves, rather than spend any time learning?
Kathy Dopp

Glenmont, NY

#42 Nov 3, 2009
Sorry bout my typos. But IRV is very tiresome that it has so many supporters who are so hopelessly ignorant of how IRV/STV really works and have instead gullibly bought all the deliberate disinformation spread by Fair[ytale] vote.

I am a mathematician who believes in studying something to find out what it really does before signing onto it and would never turn emotionally fabricate stories about people just to justify a closedminded adherence to one of the biggest threats to democracy today, IRV/STV - a bigger threat IMO even than the electronic ballot voting systems that were also promoted in 2002 by the same groups that are promoting IRV/STV today.

Anyway, typing isn't my forte.
Tony

Cranbrook, Canada

#44 Nov 4, 2009
Kathy Dopp wrote:
instead of spreading false about IRV and fabricating "facts" about me, LEARN about how instant runoff voting really works and what IRV/STV really do.... you don't seem to have enough time to studying the reports on it or try it out in a spreadsheet yourself?... do you only have time to push for IRV ... rather than spend any time learning?
It's a moot point now that St. Paul has approved the use of IRV, but I didn't spread any false information about IRV or fabricate facts about you. I made a comment in the specific context of the Burlington election, which had three candidates, and then you generalized my comment to a hypothesized situation in which there were 5 or more candidates and voters were limited to expressing 3 preferences and then claimed that my comment was false in this new context. Even in this new context, my original comment restricted itself to what would have happened in the second round, but I would agree with your statement in the context in which you applied it.

I'd also suggest that if you want to encourage people to engage in reasonable discussions with you, you refrain from accusing them of not having studied the issues. I think you'd be surprised at how much I agree with you about the issues related to the logistics of vote counting. I would suggest that the most profitable thing to do now is to accept that the people of St. Paul want a voting system that allows them to express their full and honest preferences, and, rather than attacking this decision in court, work with the city and voting reform organizations to push for a shift to a different counting system that is not sequence-dependent. For example, if we adopted Condorcet voting in single seat contests, then the ballots would be the same as with IRV (thus preserving the intent of yesterday's vote), but all ballots could be counted at the precinct level and reported as a table of head-to-head matchups that could be simply added across all precincts to determine the final outcome.

It would be a little trickier to do this for multi-seat ridings because there has to be some sort of reallocation of ballots to ensure proportionality - ie, that roughly equal numbers of voters contribute to electing each elected official - but it's possible if each precinct reports the number of each possible ballot combination (ie, the raw ballot data) rather than any consolidated results. The counts of each ballot combination can then be aggregated across all precincts in a highly public manner and anyone can run their own implementation of a counting algorithm to ensure that the results are as stated by the election officials.
Kathy Dopp

Glenmont, NY

#45 Nov 4, 2009
Tony wrote:
I would suggest that the most profitable thing to do now is to accept that the people of St. Paul want a voting system that allows them to express their full and honest preferences, and, rather than attacking this decision in court, work with the city and voting reform organizations to push for a shift to a different counting system that is not sequence-dependent. For example, if we adopted Condorcet voting in single seat contests, then the ballots would be the same as with IRV (thus preserving the intent of yesterday's vote), but all ballots could be counted at the precinct level and reported as a table of head-to-head matchups that could be simply added across all precincts to determine the final outcome.
The people of St. Paul do not understand the fundamentally unfair, egregious way that their preferences will be counted.

Yes, Condorcet would be a much better way of counting those preferences, I agree with you -- with some rule to resolve circular results that may rarely occur.
Tony wrote:
It would be a little trickier to do this for multi-seat ridings because there has to be some sort of reallocation of ballots to ensure proportionality - ie, that roughly equal numbers of voters contribute to electing each elected official - but it's possible if each precinct reports the number of each possible ballot combination (ie, the raw ballot data) rather than any consolidated results. The counts of each ballot combination can then be aggregated across all precincts in a highly public manner and anyone can run their own implementation of a counting algorithm to ensure that the results are as stated by the election officials.
Using the total counts of all possible combinations can mean having to separately total thousands of possible combination totals in each precinct. Virtually no one would understand that. In fact the counts going on in Minneapolis now are going to be done that way and what a mess that will be.

I disagree with you that a rank choice ballot of individual candidates is a good approach to proportional representation. There are better systems.

St. Paul may never implement IRV due to the campaign violations and the closeness of the vote. We'll see.

It'll be interesting to see who wins the current IRV contests still being counted in Minneapolis and if the majority favorite was eliminated, if the results exhibited nonmonotonicity, etc.

BTW, I disagree with your characterization. You were the first to begin mischaracterizing my position, but let's let bygones be...
MN Observer

Saint Paul, MN

#46 Nov 4, 2009
I don't think IRV was a success in Minneapolis. One of the selling points of IRV by its supporters is increased voter participation. I would not be surprised to learn that yesterday's election had the lowest voter turnout in Minneapolis in modern history.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

North St. Paul Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Ramsey County commissioners poised to approve 2... (Jun '15) Oct '15 LEGAL Thieves Amo... 3
Attorney reviews Thorsen's police report, decli... (May '15) May '15 NSPpoo 1
Lipstick on the snowman (Feb '15) Feb '15 Answer 1
News Maplewood Home Depot may switch from Xcel to No... (Sep '14) Jan '15 Answer 2
News Ramsey County city races: Vadnais Heights mayor... (Nov '14) Nov '14 Drunkin Henry 1
News Widow, police chief clash over tribute pin (Oct '10) Oct '14 keren happ 208
News North St. Paul pins hopes on building fiber opt... (Jan '09) Jul '14 Turk 1,754

North St. Paul Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

North St. Paul Mortgages