• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
  • WORLD DEMOCRACY
  • POLITICAL ART
  • more
    • election technology
    • money politics
    • political dissidents
    • THIRD PARTY
      • third party central
      • green party
      • justice party
      • libertarian party
    • voting methods
  • DC INFO
    • author central
    • about
    • advertise with DC
    • contact
    • privacy policy

Democracy Chronicles

Instant Runoff Revisited: Plurality’s Optimal Strategy

by Michael Ossipoff - November 19, 2012

FacebookTweetLinkedInPin

voting Instant runoff revisited shows progressive voters

Instant runoff revisited: progressive voters know Green Party represents alternative to Democrats | Democracy, elections, and voting at Democracy Chronicles

Getting a better voting system enacted, for national office, will be very difficult—and maybe impossible. The problem is that of course the existing legislators, and their bribers, aren’t motivated to replace the voting system that keeps them in power.  If there is a voting system that can be enacted at national level, it would be Approval. But any voting system reform might be impossible, without first electing a new President and Congress. The Green Party U.S. (GPUS) is by far the most win-able party that offers genuine progressive reform and improvement. Their platform includes voting-system reform. Their platform offers to replace Plurality with Instant Runoff (IRV).

Of course some of us have discussed IRV’s problems. Its worst ones include FBC failure, and count-fraud–vulnerability, due to not being precinct-summable. But because, most likely, the only way that we’re ever going to get a better voting system for national office will be by electing a better Congress and President, and because the Greens are the most win-able progressive party, and because IRV is the new voting system that the Greens offer to enact, then I suggest that IRV deserves another look. Let’s look at its two significant problems: FBC failure, and count-fraud–vulnerability due to not being precinct-summable.

FBC Failure:

I’ve been rejecting every voting system that fails FBC. But, because of what I said a few paragraphs back, let’s take a closer look at IRV’s FBC failure.  Any electorate that can elect the Greens in a Plurality election isn’t going to have any trouble using IRV. Such an electorate must have already become able to not be unduly influenced by Plurality’s FBC failure. An electorate that can elect the Greens in a Plurality election is competent enough to get by without FBC. The U/a strategy for IRV is to rank the acceptable candidates in order of (some measure of, or feel for) win-ability. As for the unacceptables, it doesn’t really matter how you rank them, because, your vote won’t reach them unless the acceptables have all been eliminated.

I don’t know how to rank the unacceptables in a non-0-info u/a election, but it doesn’t matter. In a 0-info election, rank all the candidates in sincere order of preference. Approval and IRV are the methods that meet the 0-Info Sincerity Criterion.

IRV’s lack of precinct-sum-ability and resulting count-fraud–vulnerability

For one thing, we could expect that, in a Green government, there wouldn’t be official count-fraud. Of course there could still be individuals motivated to perpetrate count-fraud. But a national IRV hand-count could be done in a way that wouldn’t be seriously or particularly count-fraud–vulnerable because each precinct, around the country, does a hand-count of the candidates’ top-counts, and sends them in to the national count headquarters, via some secure sending method.

Each precinct’s hand-count, and the national hand-count, would be conducted and observed by representatives of a variety of parties all across the political spectrum. Each participating party would also televise and video-record the count at the precincts and in the national hand-count, with its own video camera and sound-recorder. Likewise, each participating party would have its own video camera and maybe its own lock, protecting the stored ballots and count records. The national count headquarters hand-counts those top-totals, to determine who is eliminated.

The information about the eliminated candidate is sent to the local precincts, and is also announced in the ongoing report-broadcast. Each precinct crosses that eliminated candidate’s name out from the rankings, and again does a hand-count of the candidates’ top-counts, and sends them to national headquarters. The precincts would keep their ballots securely. The paper ballots would ideally be printed out from voting machines. The voter would look at his/her printed-out ballot, to ensure that it’s as s/he wants it. The national count headquarters would record each precinct top-count that it receives, from each precinct, at each stage. That would be recorded on paper, and securely guarded.

The national count headquarters would announce the candidates’ total top-counts, in the ongoing report-broadcast, at each stage of the count. People in the local precincts could examine the records of the top-counts nationally-recorded from their precinct. There’s probably a way that the above count method could be done securely. I much prefer Approval’s maximally simple hand-count. I prefer Approval’s compliance with FBC, and the various consistency criteria; but IRV would do just fine for an electorate competent enough to elect the Greens with Plurality.

Instant Runoff Revisited: Regarding IRV’s properties

Aside from IRV’s FBC failure, its lack of precinct sum-ability, and its count that’s more complicated than Approval count problems (that have already been dealt with in this message) IRV’s has some very good properties.  IRV is one of the very few methods that meets Later-No-Harm. For one thing, that means no chicken dilemma. IRV meets Mutual-Majority and Clone-Independence, and Later-No-Help.  So, IRV meets these desirable criteria:

  • Later-No-Harm (LNHa)
  • Later-No-Help (LNhe)
  • CD
  • Mutual Majority
  • Clone-Independence

The definitions of these criteria can be found at  Electowiki so feel free to take a look at the links at the end of this article.  CD is a precisely-worded criterion that measures for freedom from the chicken-dilemma. It will be defined in a subsequent article. Mutual-Majority says that a sincere-voting majority should be able to elect a candidate from a candidate-set that it prefers to all the other candidates. Later-No-Help (already defined in a recent article) says that you shouldn’t need to vote for additional candidates, to help the candidates whom you’re already voting for. Later-No-Harm says that voting for additional candidates (provided that you don’t vote them above the candidates you’re already voting for and, if the balloting allows it, you vote, over them, the candidates you’re already voting for) shouldn’t harm the chances of the candidates you’re already voting for.

Approval Voting Example Instant Runoff Revisited
Approval Voting Example

Clone-Independence is about the winner not being changed by the addition of a candidate who is so similar to another candidate or candidate-set, that everyone votes him/her adjacent to that candidate or candidate-set. Yes, I’d much rather have Approval or Score, and that’s what I recommend for enactment proposals. I just don’t offer much hope for the enactment of any reform voting system without first electing a new Congress and President by Plurality. The Greens are the win-able progressive party. IRV is the voting system that they offer.

If we can elect the Greens with Plurality, then IRV will be just fine for us. Of course, one other possibility would remain, when the Greens are in office: Advocate Approval and Score to them. But I’ve explained above why, if IRV is the voting system implemented by the Green government, then IRV will be just fine. I’ve told why failure of Clone-Independence isn’t a problem for Approval, Score, ICT, and Symmetrical ICT, but Clone Independence is still a nice bonus with IRV. I’ve told why Mutual Majority doesn’t mean much, without FBC. But that doesn’t apply to an electorate that is competent enough to elect the Greens with Plurality.

Making the Best Use of Plurality and Easily Voting Optimally in Plurality

I’ve mentioned this in a previous article, but I should say it here too: plurality’s u/a strategy is to combine votes on the most win-able acceptable candidate. I suggest that, for progressives, it’s very obvious that the nominee of the Green Party U.S. (GPUS) is, by far, the most win-able acceptable candidate. That makes it very easy to implement Plurality’s optimal u/a strategy.  Progressives should vote for the nominee of the Green Party U.S. in presidential and Congressional elections and why not in state elections too.

It’s important that anyone who votes finds out about what’s offered. Don’t let the TV (or the radio either) be your information-source. Look at the platforms of some of the media-banned parties (that’s all of the parties other than the officially endorsed and media-allowed Republocrat party—usually spoken of as if it were two parties, Democrat and Republican). I claim that the GPUS platform offers the very things that people around the county are saying that they want, and remedies the things that people around the country are complaining about.

  • http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Later-no-harm
  • http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Later-No-Help
  • http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Chicken_Dilemma_Criterion
  • http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/Mutual_majority_criterion
FacebookTweetLinkedInPin

Filed Under: DC Authors Tagged With: Democrats, Election Methods, Green Party News, Socialism and Labor, Third Party

About Michael Ossipoff

Michael Ossipoff writes for Democracy Chronicles from Miami, Florida and is one of our earliest and most prolific authors and creators. His writing covers the world of election method reform verifiable election counts and the importance of independent and third party candidates.

Some highlighted Democracy Chronicles topics

Africa American Corruption American Local Elections American State Elections Asia Capitalism and Big Business Celebrity Politics China Democracy Charity Democracy Protests Democrats Dictatorships Education Election History Election Methods Election Security Election Transparency Europe Internet and Democracy Journalism and Free Speech Middle East Minority Voting Rights Money Politics New York City and State Elections Political Artwork Political Dissidents Political Lobbying Redistricting Republicans Russia Socialism and Labor Social Media and Democracy South America Spying and Privacy Supreme Court Third Party Voter Access Voter ID Voter Registration Voter Suppression Voter Turnout Voting Technology Women Voting Rights Worldwide Worldwide Corruption

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Home | DC AUTHORS | Instant Runoff Revisited: Plurality’s Optimal Strategy

Primary Sidebar

Advertise button

A New Approach To Breaking Our Media Silos

By Jenna Spinelle August 12, 2022

It’s no secret that there’s a partisan divide in the media, but thus far, solutions to bridge that divide have been few and far between.

Carmel’s Cautionary Tale for Post-Roe America

By Joe Mathews August 10, 2022

The lesson is about… the human horrors of letting judges, or anyone else, determine our rights on the basis of history – especially when history omits so much.

democracy chronicles newsletter

DC AUTHORS

New Tech Helps Citizens Audit The Vote

By Steve Schneider August 9, 2022

Rebuilding trust in our democracy would require high-quality verification in the form of audits that will stand up in the court of public opinion.

2022: Year Of Radical Change For Camp Lejeune Justice

By Andrew Straw August 4, 2022

Indiana has been a purple state dominated and oppressed by Republicans who stack every deck in their own favor, all three branches.

Here At The Crossroads, To Lead Or Be Led

By Jack Jones August 1, 2022

We will only have a chance to save our imperiled democracy if we work to reverse discriminatory laws like Citizens United.

Laboratories Against Democracy

By Jenna Spinelle July 25, 2022

Jake Grumbach’s book “Laboratories against Democracy: How National Parties Transformed State Politics” is out now from Princeton University Press.

Mass Shootings: Time To Ramp Up Citizen Action

By Jack Jones July 20, 2022

Those controlling the levers of power need to be confronted on these issues and made uncomfortable enough so that they can act.

Harnessing The Power Of “We The People” On Independence Day

By Jenna Spinelle July 3, 2022

Democracy does not have a singular definition, which is one of the things that makes it so interesting to me — and undoubtedly to many of you.

Florida Doesn’t Need a Speech Czar

By Steve Schneider June 28, 2022

Full disclosure: I’m a liberal Democrat. So, I won’t be sending in my vote-by-mail ballot for Ron DeSantis in November. Nor will I vote for him in 2024.

MORE FROM OUR AUTHORS

VISIT OUR POLITICAL ART SECTION:

dc political art

DEMOCRACY CULTURE

New Quarter Will Honor Activist Who Fought For Women’s Voting

New Quarter Will Honor Activist Who Fought For Women’s Voting

July 28, 2022

A Latina suffragette and one of New Mexico’s first female officials during the 20th century will have her image stamped on the US quarter.

Magnum Photographers Challenged To Picture Swiss Democracy

Magnum Photographers Challenged To Picture Swiss Democracy

July 6, 2022

Magnum photographers accustomed to exploring crisis regions have been challenged to capture the quiet operation of Swiss democracy.

India: Why Are Punjab Political Singers Under Attack?

India: Why Are Punjab Political Singers Under Attack?

June 8, 2022

The murder of Sidhu Moose Wala has brought attention to the link between Punjabi music and India’s cross-border criminal networks.

University Educated Less Likely To Endorse Authoritarianism

University Educated Less Likely To Endorse Authoritarianism

June 4, 2022

Higher education is now seen as a new political cleavage, with level of education increasingly important in describing political attitudes.

From Cake To Volunteers, Welcome To Australia’s Democracy Day

From Cake To Volunteers, Welcome To Australia’s Democracy Day

May 25, 2022

The atmosphere in the interstate polling booth in Sydney’s inner east resembled that of an emergency room waiting for a donor organ.

MORE CULTURE

VISIT OUR US DEMOCRACY SECTION:

American Democracy