Worth fightin' for?

What pulls me into politics at all is a sort of intellectual challenge - to look at something that you can take sides on and break it a part and see what it is made of. That's the way of the intellect.

Now with that admission, you may run away, at least if you at all imagined I had any noble motive towards furthering human spirit. No, it's just a game.

Oh, you didn't imagine I had noble motive? Well, I imagined that at least, but I accept that probably there is no nobility of the intellect. It is a cold thing, feed by its own power, and willing to devalue anything.

I titled this entry "Worth fightin' for?" recognizing whatever concerns or positions I might take in a political debate, I'm more interested in expression than follow through. That's again the intellect's limits - when the debate is won, it is forgotten, and whatever concerns or injustices it recognized can be fixed.

Well, just thinking about how easily I can drop a subject. On Friday I wrote a 1000 word opinion piece on my concerns of IRV in Minneapolis, and now for two days I've thought nothing of it. It is a sort of annoying fly I can swat at, but really I don't even care. Do I really want to put effort into defending a point of view?

Even as I ask, I see I'd open the door again and swat at it. I was annoyed last effort because my first focus was distracted by a more important one, and I didn't want to focus. Now I wonder if I ought to refocus on the new idea and attack full power there, while previously only a half hearted effort.

Specifically, I'm quite sure Minneapolis ought NOT to eliminate the primary round, even if IRV (and STV) can logically handle any number of candidates.

I can see why they want to eliminate it - because if it was partisan elections, there'd be no "general primary" to help, so why pretend it needs one?

I have my original issue of a top-two runoff as being most fair (to the plurality strength of candidates) in a single seat election, but I see a primary is much more valuable. Minneapolis already has a top-two primary, so majority rule is assured. So the issue is how to get more choices to the general election, and I see that a primary system that USUALLY has two candidates, sometimes three, and occassionally four would make for a much more orderly IRV process anyway.

So here I am, once again, imagining myself heroic, defending the primary as a "Right of passage" for candidates to be worthy of the general election.

It's a stronger issue than my little top-two mess, and seemingly neglected. I imagine I could write a kick-ass defense of the primary, and it would be great fun to imagine expanding the rules of the primary beyond top-two. I've already started on my Friday attempt, but I avoided the multiwinner elections.

Okay, let me try my worst here.

Supposition: Letting any candidate with a beating heart into a general election is foolhearty.

Why? Now I'm in trouble. We're all for "more choices", right?!

Well, said the mousy little voice of reason, I'm a rather busy mouse, springing mousetraps for my supper to feed my little ones every day, and I don't have time to research 52 candidates to make an informed choice.

Okay, you convinced me, but hold on, what sort of hoops do we want? Partisan elections for independent candidates require X signatures to gain access to the ballot. I expect city elections have no requirement. The primary itself is the proving grounds.

Right, but what conditions? For instance, like signatures, you could say a fixed number of votes ought to be considered, like 1000 votes for instance. In a city of say 200,000 voters(?), expecting to get 1000 people to vote for you in a primary ought to be reasonable, even if voter turn out is 10%.

A more general requirement would be like 5% of the primary vote. That's not asking for very much, and is low enough to guarantee at least two will pass, not mathematically certain, but the reality that highly known candidates will tend to grab the most votes.

Secondly there's a question on how people should vote in a primary. I lean towards a plurality result - everyone has one vote. IRV supporters might suggest IRV, but I'd say no. Heck some will say an "approval vote" is good, and might be, except it allows too many games to be played. No voting in a wide field is hard enough. Pick a candidate and get to 5%. There'll still be game playing - supporters of strong candidate have a freedom to "vote down" if they like, and with a low enough bar, it's a safe bet.

Okay, think of a nonpartisan primary as "parties of one". You have to pick sides. Rank elimination is fine when there's a majority requirement, but we're talking 5%. And if two candidates get 4%, they can cry spoiler if they like, but come on, why didn't they work together if they have a lovefest?

Here's an example election with many candidates:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_2002

7 candidates over 5%, and three over 15%. They had a top-two runoff, and the second round was miserable, with nearly 100% of votes going against the runner up.

Supporters will say IRV could have cut through this disaster, and I admit it could have, even with limited rankings.

Limited rankings actually represents the primary limitation of IRV in practice. Basically a fair limitation is to say you shouldn't have more candidates than one more than the rankings. So a 3-ranking ballot ought not to have more than 4 candidates.

Although it can equally be argued that even in a 4-seat election, the top 1-3 preferences will likely hold the majority the vote, so it's not easy to defend limited rounds merely on ranks available.

Is it REALLY a necessary issue? It could be a primary is not needed for technical limitations, but entirely on arguments of limitations of voter attention.

I basically accept AT LEAST twice as many candidates can exist in an STV election as winners, although that makes single-winner IRV trivial! Okay allow up to 2*seats+1?

A second issue is over what sort of primary should exist for multiseat elections? I mean for proportional representation like STV? A majority choice isn't acceptable. I'd lean towards an "Equal&Even Cumulative vote" since it is semi-PR. It allows you to split a single vote as widely as desired. Surplus transfers ought not to be valuable in a primary because we'd like more voters to choose the set, while surpluses come from voters who already got a winner in.

The simplest semi-PR method is one-vote! I only reject it because it discounts voters who wish to compromise, and creates false strategy (which candidate needs my vote more?)

So I basically come out for regular CV, N-votes for N-seats, distributable. I like E&E better because it is simpler to vote.

Anyway, whatever "single vote" method is used in the primary, what standard should pick the winners? I'd accept a top-2N argument, and all above a 1/5th quota. A low threshold is acceptable in exchange for no surplus transfer. (10% for 1 winner, 6.7% for 2 winners, 5% for 3 winners, 4% for 4 winners, etc.)

It seems "complicated" to try to defend any given rule. The only defense at all is the "old rule" was top-2 or top-2N for multiseat elections. So I'd follow those PLUS a vote threshold to include more that that.

I'm too much in love with E&E-CV as being a simple as "plurality-at-large", an approval vote. It could be limited marks by winners, probably reasonable. Certainly never perfectly safe to vote more widely, but I would claim WORSE compromises occur otherwise. In a one-seat election primary, if I like A and B, and A looks strong, I'll vote for B, and if many like me "mis-estimate" A, then they may lose both. The value of splitting a vote on both is it gives the best results if all supporters did that - best at least if there's a chance both can make the threshold.

Well, overall I'm stuck, unable to promote CV without a fight, not in any form, EXCEPT single-vote. Defending single-vote means unacceptable strategy issues.

The obvious solution is to apply STV fully in a rank primary, and that seems impossible, since the whole point is to make a threshold for starting a rank vote. And what quota do you set in a STV primary? You could say quota/2. So that's 25% for a single winner election, and 16% for a 2 winner election, 12.5% for a 3 winner election.

In practice, even with surplus transfers, the quotas won't be easily met with many "bullet votes". That's harmless (surplus transfers surrendered basically.)

Okay look at my favorite month data, have 2 winners, and pretend 5 for primary. Setting a 16.67% quota, it comes up with Aug, Jul, May, Sep, Apr, and loser Oct at the bottom.

Then in a 5-candidate general, with 2-winners (33.3% quota), September and May come out ahead 32.86% with July a razor close third at 31.79%. But that election had well ranked ballots. (Only 2.1 votes lost outside these 3)

Anyway, I can see a clear value of a primary on the grounds that voters will be more likely to rank them.

So my simple suggestion is take 2*seats+1 candidates from the primary. That's PERFECT for keeping a single winner election down to a two round system! (Two birds with one stone!)

Yes, keep a single-vote primary, and take the top 2*seat+1 candidates, plus further thresholds for including more. I'd almost just say 2*seats, unless a third is "worthy", but I can go either way.

On defining worthiness, I always accept a fixed percent threshold (for a given number of seats). What that threshold is, is debatable, anywhere from 1/(seats+1) to 1/(2*seats+2) basically.

The purpose of the threshold is to help candidates recognize if they are viable or not. It is easier to know if you may be close to 10% than to know if you're in the top-5. Maybe not, but a fixed threshold holds power for candidates to shoot for, a fair line to accept failure. Better to barely miss 10% than barely miss 4th placing.

Still the system does reek of strategy and failure. Only a low threshold evens the field enough to accept "wasted" votes on top. An E&E-CV is so far superior in result, I'm sad I can't propose it. Strategy is muted by willing compromise.

I just don't think I can advocate a single-vote system for multiseat election that disallows a split vote!

I think I may yet have to abandon my fixed threshold. The problem with that is that it encourages "strategic downvoting" for supporters of candidates far above the threshold.

No, I think a pure ranking is the best we can do in a one vote system, and depend on statistics to average out the strategy. Fine, without split votes, I abandon fixed thresholds.

Top-(2N+1) primary has merit. It is simple, gives choice, and high standards.

On my month election? 2 winners? Top 5? Sep=19%-May=16%-Aug=12%-Jul=10%-Apr=9%. That's 65% of the vote. Looks good!

I'm convinced A top-(2*N+1) primary in a one-vote system is a good compromise.
Even if we had a split vote CV system, it's not so bad to just take a fixed set.

Can I can ANY primary data for Minneapolis? .
http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=154964
2005 - [Rybak 44.48%, LcLaughlin 35.34%], Hakeem 13.84%, Kscielski 1.76%, Johnson 1.27%, Franson 0.81%
There was ONE candidate below third potentially worthy.
And % data from 1993: http://mapnp.geeks.org/pipermail/mpls/2001-July/004474.html
Belton=28%, Derus=20%, Cramer=16%, Rapson=16%, Jefferson=7%, Wodele=7%, Other=6%

That's a wild case for a virtue tie for third. Keeping both could be justified.

Just looking at the potential of IRV, ANY of the top SIX candidates could theoretically rise in a slow runoff via transfer votes to win.

With names, in fact, I found a link above, with an analysis, reasonable or not:
>Eighteen candidates ran for Mayor in 1993, and the primary results
>looked like this:
>Belton 28% Cramer 16% Derus 20%
> Rapson 16%
> Wodele 7%
> Jefferson 7%
> Belton and Derus, the most left-liberal and most right-conservative,
>went on to the general election. Problem was, the moderate 47% of the
>electorate split their moderate votes four ways, and no one of the four
>"moderate" candidates got into the finals.

Good enough for me. Can I draft a quick opinion piece here?

*******************
I congratulate Minneapolis voters for their progressive support of Instant Runoff Voting for their city elections. The breath of support was amazing and Minneapolis will be able to lead the state in the demonstration of how elections can be done better.

However I must offer one point of concern, one which can easily be addressed before implementation of new elections in 2009. I believe the call to remove the nonpartisan primary as a mistake. As far as I can tell there were three reasons for the step: (1) To save money (2) Low voter turnout (3) To increase choices in the general election.

I must strongly disagree with the first two reasons - politics is a participation sport, and requires more than just the time of voting, but learning about the candidates. In short, I expect the minority of voters who go to the primary are exactly the voters who will have spent the time to make informed choices among the candidates. The financial cost of the primary is a small affair compared to the costs involved to voters in their time and energy in making an informed choice in the primary.

Now on the third point I fully accept, but with IRV we can do the primary better - allowing more candidates through. How many? My conservative position would be keep the top-three candidates for single seat elections, and in general twice the seats plus one for multiseat elections.

Is that too narrow? Perhaps, but I'm sure having no primary is much too wide. I am not doubting that IRV and rank preference ballots can't handle more candidates. My concern is first to candidates and second to voters. I believe candidates ought to feel free to run in the primary, but ought to see inclusion in the general election as something that must be earned. The currency of political capital is votes, and the primary ought to be seen as the date of destiny for candidates to measure their base of support.

Secondly it is a mark of respect to voters to give them a legimate list of candidates to choose between. You can't expect to give voters a phone book and make them pick names. Sure voters ought to be informed, but we can make it a little easier on them, and make sure there are standards for candidates.

Sure, popular names like "Sharon Anderson" might still get votes to pass the primary, but if the set of candidates is small enough by the general election, they'll be properly handled through the media for who they are beyond just a nice name.

Despite romantic ideas of democracy, voting is a hard process. It will continue to be a process filled with half-knowledge and intuition despite all our hopes for fact and reason to lead us.

I hope that Minneapolis reconciders the elimination of the primary. I encourage all thoughtful voters to also support this. Choice is good, but knowledge is better, and keeping the a primary round is too important to let go without a fight.

Depressed investor/conservator

I have been given the responsibility for investing a relatively small amount of memorial money for my niece after the death of my brother, to be held under she is 18, ideally to be used for school, but not necessarily a demand.

The amount is over $1000, and I calculated in 5 years, even at 15% interest, the amount would only double in that time. And WHO knows how much school inflation will increase in the same time. I only say 15% because it allows a 5 year doubling, not that I expect I could get that return anywhere securely.

Worse than that, I'm basically a pessimist, and figure NO investment is particularly good. I considered savings bonds, one adjusted with inflation, but of course it'll just squeek along, AND I don't even approve with the federal government's irresponsible debt accumulation to want to invest there!

I imagine perhaps the best investment is to hold it as "paper investment" spend it in my cash flow (reducing my debt), and pay the interest myself at the end. It is "useful" in that way, and I certainly have no care on doubling it in the end. As a financial decision, I have little fear I "couldn't pay up" in the end, or that I'd have any reason to reverse this agreement (to myself).

It's most curious when imagining holding a family member's money for an investment. On a financial side it (1) keeps money in the family (2) reduces family debt, (3) makes it easy to be generous with interest.

On the other side, as an uncle I can question how my so-called "generosity" in interest relates to other generosity towards her, in some sort of connecting. I can't explain, but hopefully clear - basically it is just plain WRONG to call INTRA-FAMILY gifts as INTEREST in any shape or form. It is a gift plain and simple. It is SUCH because we're not in positions of equals, and the whole interest thing is just in my mind, like a "guilt response" - like throwing extra money on the table at a restaurant to make sure I don't pay too little in a shared bill. It's just a game that is played by people who can afford to throw money away.

The the other side is control. I feel responsible for the money, but MY responsibility won't help her. She ought to be encouraged to make her own decisions on savings, and maybe even ADDING to the savings.

I think of my own savings account as a child where all my birthday money went. For me, it went IN and rarely out, and half because of my disinterest, and half parents who wouldn't follow through with transfering money when I asked for something to spend on my money.

But anyway savings interests are a joke, and overall kids saving for college is a bigger joke for me. Maybe it'll pay for books in a first year of school? But it's just peanuts.

College like everything now-a-days is paid through DEBT - borrow now and hopefully earn enough money in the end to pay it of AND be better off than without the diploma. Overall a good bet, but not guaranteed at all, and I've heard crazy stories of cooking school and teaching degrees that opened $50k in debt and no job to pay for them.

Perhaps in 5 years I'll still be doing well, and can help her with school costs, but my girlfriend's 3 kids also might need help. It is a hard place - how to mix guilt at well-being, generosity, and what really helps family members become their own person. Not really something I can do at a distance, and I am overall distant from my niece, not overly welcome in her new family.

So I suppose the whole money thing is just a sliver of bigger questions - what is my place when I have no kids of my own? What can I do to help? What do I want to do?

Overall my honest answer is I want no part of money, and if I have more than I need, more than is needed in my immediate life, where ever that is, then I'd just as well give it away for someone else to find good for it.

Sure I want money well "invested", helping to make the future reach the potential available, and protect the world that sustains me and my family. Who can say what that investment really is?

I might as well "give it to my brother's ex-wife" and let her decide what's best. If I trusted her, that would be ideal - since she might best know what's good for her daughter. On the other hand, she's busy over her head dealing with day to day things, I imagine she has few thoughts on investsments for college for her kids. Maybe I'm wrong, but no information to guess.

I won't end these questions, and will hold the money for now. I don't have a clear answer at all.

Election day reflections

With another hour or so of voting, and another 5 hours perhaps to get good estimates of winners of the elections today, I thought I'd better distract myself as I can, and see what I think of democracy.

Thoughts most coming up have been around peak oil, global warming, and general sense of "doom and gloom" about a future of diminished resources to support our still expanding population. You just KNOW something must give sooner or later, and wonder what to do about.

Now as a relatively well off American, among a VERY well off country, there's quite a lot I can consider doing to "invest" in more sustainable future. I mean invest largely in the money sense, but as much in the time sense - taking the time to understand my corner of the world, what sustains it, and what responses it can take if times of crises or shortages come up.

Well, partly I recognize all the little things I might do are ultimately "nothing" in the bigger picture if others are not able to follow me, whether through a lack of money, time, interest, or ambition. Basically not only do I have to "lead by example" and "show personal benefit" by action, but also offer reasonable actions that many people CAN make, not just spoiled computer programmers who don't have a life or family to distract attention.

I've thought also about the nature of "limits", like with Halloween. A year ago there was TONS of candy at work before halloween, all those cute little wrapped confections of delight. So very easy to grab one, two, or TWENTY after a long work day. Well I found a compromise. Before halloween I allowed myself "one of each type per day" and I didn't like much of it, so that worked well, and after halloween when employees brought in even MORE extra candy, I had enough and said "one per day"", simple enough, and gosh darn, moderation works. It's annoying that moderation seems to have 3 numbers: zero, one, and infinitity. There just doesn't seem to be any interesting numbers between two and infinitity, well, except a stomach ache perhaps! But seriously, when no mental limits are applied, satiation perhaps is reached with about a dozen minichocolate bars per hour. Seriously, no more, but of course that's quite a lot!

My little example shows something, even if I'm not sure what. It shows that under times of stress, will power can't be easily control impulses, and something stronger is needed. What is strange is how rules can AID willpower.

I can go into economics. At work we used to have a little "snack pack", a small box with assorted candy and a slot for money to pay on an honor system, $0.60/snack. When the privider left, people missed it and I guess either we or one employee had a membership at Sam's club, so she started our own snack system, starting with a prepurchase from company money, and people again take snacks by the honor system. She calculated a cost of $0.40/snack.

Well, with the magic of bulk orders, our snack costs went down 33%! Now $2 could BUY 5 snacks. Since change is annoying, easiest to drop in $2 at a time, and count out 5 snacks. Well, easy if its used up in a few days! Seriously dirt cheap calorie rich, good tasting, stress comfort food! You know what I mean?

Okay, just mentioned that to notice that price actually effects consumption. Free is best of course, but 5 snacks for $2 is nicer than 5 snacks for $3, even if both are still cheap. And even at $0.40 each, apparently it earns a "profit" since she's used profits to buy kitchen equipment and supplies as well!

Now we might say my company is "enabling" poor eating habits, just like you might say "McDonalds". It's a funny issue, and surely 60% of the population has a reasonable control over their snacking, and another 30% has control most of the time with occasional binging, and then only 10% really has serious trouble with temptations.

Then looking at another side, my company pays 100% of the health insurance payments of employees, and complains about the high premiums, but meanwhile is tempting employees with bad "foods" all day. Always I accept personal responsibility, but doesn't the provider of temptation also have some responsibility as well?

Well, my "solution" would be to create a "sin tax" on snacks. Even if break-even costs average $0.25/each, why not charge $1/snack? People will still throw away their dollar without a care, because it is easy, but they'll start to consider how much they're adding up to and perhaps eat a little less. Maybe?

The same argument can be used for gasoline taxes. Okay, people NEED gas to power their cars to get around, but once you have cheap fuel, you use your car more, you create a lifestyle where you're drive all around to meet your needs each day, and you get LESS exercise, and it creates a downward spiral of poorer health since the worse shape you're in, the harder exercise is, and the easier it is to depend on auto travel.

So if gasoline cost $5/gallon, people will still pay for it, but they'll think about it a bit more. Okay, again, I'm thinking from the perspective of someone who doesn't "budget". Money I spend on gas or food is much smaller than I'd ever worry about hurting my budget. Others barely getting by will see $3 gas as hurting them, and $5 even more.

So at one level you might say "sin taxes" have no effect on people who have enough money, and HURT people who are already poor.

On being poor and food, my girlfriend said that McDonalds is not only cheap for eating out, but even cheap compared to grocery store food, at least "good food". I didn't quite believe, but admit when I was a student, McDonalds seemed pretty cheap.

And then contrast to the really ritzy "organic", "free range", "fair trade" stuff, well, apparently paying for good food is simply not affordable to the lower class, even if they wanted it.

Part of my support for "sin taxes" is that it encourages better choices, and helps make better alternatives more attractive.

For example, I'm not high on support for Ethanol as produced, but not hopeless yet. I complain that subsidies are not good, that they distort the market, so inefficient production can continue. I don't know if ethanol is a viable fuel, but I say rather than subsidizing ethanol $0.50/gallon, why not just add a $0.50/gallon tax to gasoline? THEN if ethanol can compete, I'll be happlier to accept it. It STILL might not be sustainable - might be depleting soil quality, or grown by using depleting natural gas supplies for producing fertiliers, etc.

I can't compare organic food since it isn't subsidized, but just in terms of raw materials, why not add a HUGE tax on "high frucose corn syrup" or other highly processed, poor nutritional valued ingredients to poor quality foods. These costs will get passed on into higher costs for junk food and drinks, and like my "snack pack", example people would overall consume less and be more likely to look at healthier alternatives.

It is actually "so obvious" it is surprising to me, in my naivity why this has never been proposed. Probably because not ONLY are we creating cheap sweeters from corn, we're SUBSIDIZING corn production and trying to find MARKETS for the excess. If we actually did something to lower demand, we'd HURT farmers even more by hurting prices. I don't know, but just imagining how self-interest fails to meet the needs of greater society, health and wellbeing.

Well, starting small, perhaps I'll try selling a "sin tax" at work, and propose a place to spend this surplus. Interestingly, if people KNOW how little it costs to buy the snacks, and that the honor system is never accounted for cheats, they can continue paying $0.40 each. So ultimately the "sin tax" becomes entirely voluntary. This WORKS in a workplace of well-off employees, but less so probably in the market place.

Imagine your grocery bill was $172.08, and adding a voluntary "sin tax" of $38.22. Would ANYONE pay this? That's perhaps an example of "scale". Adding a small tax to many small bills seems small, while the same tax on one larger bill seems less acceptable.

Well, I think of Xcel's "WindSource" program, voluntarily paying an extra $0.02/kwh, to cover extra costs of wind power, and in theory encouraging expansion of wind generation as people are willing to pay for it.

An impatient person wants to "tax all" out of fairness, and perhaps a wiser person accepts people are better of empowered by choices over limitations placed on them. Perhaps "voluntary" taxes could exist, although of course there's some fraction of the people who believe ALL government spending is corrupt and don't want one extra dime to go towards the government.

And of course people can already pay more for better products, like organic food. For me the only reinforcement for a "sin tax" on sweets is I believe I'm better off for it myself.

Well, interesting thoughts, not sure what I'll do with them....

The race is on

A curious development has occured in the CD5 race - a "spoof" website of Tammy Lee's appeared which copied her content and modified by "satirical" underthought, imagining Lee is playing a race card to win over Ellison.
http://www.tammyleeforcongress.com/ Real
http://www.trailblz.info/leetammy/hatesite/hatesite.htm Spoof

It's now been changed to say "This pag is political satire and not connected to Tammy Lee for congress"

I only found out through an outraged email from the Tammy Lee campaign. I just can't be quite as outraged because I've had my own wonderings ... not that Tammy herself even necessarily has any racial motives, but more the issue whether a public endorsement for Lee over Ellison.

I don't it seems fully lost to even ask the question. On one side, if I were a candidate and was endorsed by someone who has expressed racial slurs or stereotypes, I'd not be comfortable to accept that.

I don't like the satire, and it's not even me being attacked. I don't know if it is slanderous or libel. I mean sure, it's implying things which may be true, or false, or just some hint at truth. Sometimes the best lies are half truths. Sometimes half-truths are still truths worth looking at.

It is strange that a strong front runner would need "attack dogs" to make such websites against his opponents. It is tricky, how to compete "nicely", how to leave open the doors for reconciliation when the election is done.

I thought Alan Fine's attacks on Ellison were over the top, and even if he had valid points they were lost in a failure to respect Ellison as a person capable of evaluating his own strengths and weaknesses and moving forward.

Most of all the whole mess just does turn me away from wanting to vote, not that it would turn me away. I expect Ellison will win, despite my vote for Lee. I believe Ellison to be sincere and thoughtful and capable, at least as much as Lee.

Am I a racist? I've looked into my feelings and I can see I'm more of a culturalist than racist, so it is harder for me to support someone with a background and style very different from me - now specifically talking against relating to much of black culture, the slangs and in-your-face attitude, the rap and anger. Perhaps Ellison can live comfortably in that atmosphere, but he also seems to live in mine as well - so I respect him as a communicator and leader who can bring people together.

Is satire acceptable like the website above? I don't know. I expect so. I'd let it go.

Top two runoff is the best we can do

Given the referendum vote in Minneapolis for IRV for city elections, I thought this is my last chance to test my arguments against a fundamental failing of IRV as proposed. (I should add that I live in a suburb and work in Minneapolis, so it won't effect me directly)

After significant research and analysis I have concluded I only unconditionally support IRV if it is implemented as a top-two runoff process, rather than the bottom-up elimination as usually described.

I'd appreciate feedback here. I see my argument as fully defendable, but when I've tried explaining this in the past, I find IRV promoters don't want controversy, and most people who study election methods want FURTHER reform away from plurality like Condorcet, so my poor top-two "option" seems unduly, and in my opinion dangerously neglected.

Well, the time is NOW when IRV is on "firm ground", but not yet planted to discuss elimination rules to be used.

I base my reasoning on a principle I call "plurality fairness". By that I mean under a plurality (single vote) system voters are rewarded by working together and uniting behind a single candidate if the they want a good chance to win. Candidates are only rewarded by becoming the first choice of as many voters as possible.

Given this pre-election work, it can be assumed that on election day "voters have compromised as much as they're willing", and no more voting rounds will make a difference. By that reasoning, the plurality winner is sufficient, no matter how small a portion of votes he got.

It is a false assumption that "no one will compromise further", but that fear of "last chance" is what strengthens voters to unite and this reward system shouldn't be tampered with lightly. But it may be tinkered at with care.

Our "tool' is a "harmless" mathematical principle called "majority rule" that says "When a candidate gains over a majority (50%) of the vote, then no other candidate can win." I say "harmless" because any self-respecting winner ought to believe he or she can beat any competitor head-to-head. And a winner who gains a majority is further honored by knowing a majority is in support.

The top-two runoff (or top-two primary or top-two IRV) offers this confirmation step. And as a consequence, it also allows the plurality-second candidate a chance to stand as an equal with a chance to win. This candidate might be considered the "wildcard team" by sports analogy - being rewarded for being "almost on top".

Well, that's very good, but some reformers will go further. They'll worrifully notice that in a 4 candidate contest, sometimes a candidate who "would have been second" falls to a close third due to a "weak spoiler" who divided the support. Those divided votes on the bottom will ask for fairness and claim the right to a 3-round runoff where the top-three get a chance to compete as equals.

Now we've already got the Majority-rule principle covered by the Top-two process, so why should we try a Top-three runoff? (Via two elimination rounds)

In my judgment there's little support for this step - just ask the candidates themselves. The plurality first and plurality second candidates want a guarantee for their shot in the final round - the only round they're treated fairly as individuals. Supporters of these plurality top-two candidates ALSO want their candidates their shot in the final round. There's not going to be much pity by these voters on top to risk losing their shot in the final round.

Now again remember the (brutal but sincere) principle of plurality is to reward candidates to compromise BEFORE the election, and the assumption that candidates (and voters) who don't compromise will lower their chances of picking the winner. A top-two runoff is EXACTLY like plurality - it encourages voters to compromise early, and directly reward candidates for this success.

Bottom-up IRV doesn't support this goal. Bottom-up IRV can treat TWO candidates fairly, but it chooses those two candidates through a convoluted (recursive elimination) process where a small change in votes on the bottom and elimination order may change the final-two and hence the winner. There's no defendable justification for this, and actual "harm" here to a "plurality fairness" principle which a "one vote" system must always promote.

I'm not against IRV, and I'm not against giving a "plurality third" candidate a fair shot to win. However I want this done RIGHT. If a plurality third candidate gets a shot head-to-head in the final round, then I believe the plurality-second candidate also deserves equal treatment. That is, if we want this, we need a full Condorcet pair-wise (head-to-head) competition among all three, and then we can be sure which deserves to win. (shushing unlikely rock-paper-scissors cyclic preferences away)

So for now I conclude a "top-two IRV" is the best we can support with "plurality fairness" - rewarding voters fairly by those who compromise early.

An example, using political parties:
Plurality vote: GOP=34%, IP=30%, DFL=28%, Green=8%

The top-two runoff would be between GOP and IP. The IP supporters EARNED "playoff" status here under top-two.

The bottom-up runoff final-two are yet uncertain, but we imagine the Green transfer votes would push the DFL to second and take away the IP candidate's chance to compete head-to-head against either competitor.

All we know here is that ANY one of the top three could win depending on transfer votes, and only two are allowed to compete in the final round.

Please note that I'm not saying top-two is better than bottom-up. I accept statistically that bottom-up IRV will more often pick a Condorcet winner (the candidate who can win head-to-head against all others) than a top-two process. I'm just saying "usually better" is insufficient to justify more than two rounds that SOMETIMES eliminate the Condorcet (head-to-head) winner who had been in the original plurality top-two.

Hopefully I've argued my points reasonably clearly. It's not easy to express concern over the sides-effects of recursive elimination in 4-way contests. Examples that try to clarify issue entice people to take sides.

My point is "when there's three strong sides", there's no "fairness for all" in a one-vote system. And my conclusion "If we must choose two, take the plurality top-two".

It is a "small difference" and that's why it is hard to demonstrate. However when it is different, it's always disagreeable to a candidate who will likely have a good fraction of the vote, and who will be angry at being displaced, and that's the whole problem in a nutshell.

Maybe in less competitive nonpartisan city elections, bottom-up IRV is acceptable and candidates will gladly accept elimination (Even party endorsements are "cooperative" for allowing multiple elimination rounds), but I expect it'll never be accepted in partisan elections when candidates see this subtle effect explained clearly. They may accept against their will and will simply try to undermined the reform as circumstances allow.

Comments are welcome. Thanks!

Plurality fairness and majority rule

Single winner elections where every one has one vote and the highest voter-getter wins is called Plurality.

Supporters of plurality say that that it is a good method because it is conservative, assuming that voters will spend time before the election to rally behind a single candidate, and shift their support as other similar candidates appear with more support. So by the time the actual election is held, everyone has compromised as far as they are going to. Given this condition, there's no reason to consider the highest voted candidate won't stay there even if a new vote was conducted.

Rejectors of plurality will say that voter ARE willing to compromise further because they didn't have enough information before the first vote to guage the strength of their favorite candidate. They note that when the plurality winner fails to exceed a majority of the vote (50%), a different candidate may have been able to win by further compromise. Thus the idea of a "runoff" was deviced to allow lower candidates to withdraw and endorse another candidate who stands a better chance to win.

The simplest runoff approach is to allow the top-two candidates in the plurality count to compete against each other in a new round of voting. This allows a majority of voters to decide which of the two deserves to be elected.

Example: A=40%, B=35%, C=25%
Eliminate C
Result: A=55%, B=45%
Winner A by a majority

Now "majority rule" is assured, but we may notice that a different "majority winner" might have come out if there's more than 3 candidates. Then perhaps a top-three runoff was held, having 3 rounds, keeping the top-three for a second round, and a third round top-two for a final winner.

Now it seems "harmless" to add a third round, and helpful, allowing more voters to pick the "final two", even if majority rule itself doesn't demand this step.

But once you go to 3 rounds, things get somewhat funny. Afterall the reason we want to go to 3 rounds is that we could change the final-two, and change the winner. However how can we judge which candidates deserve to make the final round?

Remember back to the plurality supporters. They believe candidates should be rewarded for having the most votes and that this "reward" encourages compromise before the election and that voters who don't choose to compromise before election day don't want to compromise.

Now we are considering a 3-round runoff where one or both of the plurality top-two may be knocked out and disallowed their chance to compete in the final round.

When we went from top-one (one round) to top-two (two rounds), the top-one candidate couldn't complain easily since he is guaranteed to make the final round and a chance to win. However when you move from top-two (two round) to top-three (three round) runoff, you're risking the "guarantee" that the plurality-second candidate will get his fair chance in the final round to win.

I consider this a "plurality fairness" principle. If we agree elections are MEANT to encourage pre-election compromise, then we want to exclusively reward this compromise with equal treatment.

Plurality treats ALL candidates fairly.
Top-two runoff treats TWO candidates fairly.
Top-three runoff treats TWO candidates fairly, BUT they may NOT be the same as the plurality top-two candidates.

For this reason, I can not support a three round runoff. If we want to treat THREE candidates fairly, then we ought to move to a Condorcet style election where all the candidates, (or all the candidates that pass some threshold requirement, like plurality top-three) are treated as equals.

With that background, I support IRV (Instant Runoff Voting) for political elections, but only as a top-two runoff. I do not support a bottom-up elimination process in a single winner election.

This means there's still a "spoiler effect" in 3-way races where a 4th candidate pulls down a candidate competing for second, but I believe it is the best we can do.

If we use bottom-up IRV and it disallows a plurality-second candidate a chance to compete in the final round, we will create an enemy of IRV, and we can not afford to make such enemies.

Social engineering and the Pigou Club

Interesting post at:
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/pigou-club-manifesto.html Raise the Gas Tax
I would like to see Congress increase the gas tax by $1 per gallon, phased in gradually by 10 cents per year over the next decade.

Besides my total agreement, I'm depressed that it is "too small, too late". There's simply no chance that $0.10/gal increase per year is sufficient to have any effect in consumption.

Then I read comments down to
Raising the gas tax to force changes in behavior smacks directly of social engineering. No matter how you dress it up (environment, congestion, etc), it is quite clear that is what is intended, to coerce changes in people's behavior. I find it quite similar to the social engineers(technically urban planners) who wish to impose their vision of society on the people. They dress their views up in similar rhetoric. They argue that it is good for the environment, less congestion, or my favorite "sustainable" cities. I have to ask you and them, what is wrong with letting people make their choices? I could agree with a higher gas tax, if it could be demonstrated that the cost of the gas tax (both explicit and implicit) would be less than the perceived environmental benefits.

I find this reply as thoughtful. No one wants to be "controlled" by others. We want our freedom to do what we want and we EXPECT anyone who tells us otherwise to PROVE the harm, and then they'll voluntarily refrain from doing something. However projections of the future are best proved by waiting until you get there but some harm may be irreversible, or much more expensive to deal with then.

Mostly when I hear rejections like this I think rather than trying to prove what can't be proven I'd prefer to pout and wait until the day I can say "I told you so."

What is wrong with letting people make their choices?

It's a funny game - choices. We're given a menu and we make our choice. Next year we're given a different menu and we make another choice. Our choices are limited by external circumstances beyond our control. However our decisions can effect our future choices. If everyone lived in their own world, they could do whatever they want and take the consequences.

However when YOUR choices now are affecting my future choices, then I imagine it is reasonable to set limits on your choices.

But it's more than just that. If collectively we're ALL reducing the future's potential, then we can all accept the consequences. I don't know. For me it comes down to an assumption that as long as we're dependent upon fossil fuels, there's no honest economics at all. We're all spending down inherited wealth and creating a world that can't exist in the future.

I can argue that if every human on earth had "choices" to use as much power as Americans, that the system would collapse because there's not enough available. Others can argue we'll transition to something new when we need it, and so its better to stay on course and just wait for circumstances to force change.

I suppose I must be arguing against myself, since I always back down to bullies who want to wait for the consequences to be apparent before changing course. It's a good way to learn, when you have wealth to burn.

It is fun to imagine the opposite approach to my retreat is militancy - taking matters into your own hands with terrorism or revolution as your means allow.

Extra fun to look at issues I don't support, like imaginary fears on the morality of killing unborn babies to justify killing doctors. At least there everyone can agree minimizing abortion is good, while there is no clear consensus that minimizing fossil fuel burning is good.

I'm basically a fatalist I guess. I'll let the fuckers destroy the world, and clean up my corner as I can. It just seems hopeless to fight.

I guess I don't want to be wrong either. That's what separates me from the fundamentalists. A fundamentalist will kill a logger or a doctor for their cause because they know they're right. I don't know what will happen. I expect things'll get ugly whether or not we decide to respond to peak oil or climate change. Bad things will happen, people will suffer and die, and others will survive, and move on as choices happen.

We're just dumb animals too clever for our cages.