IRV Debate This Thursday

Tweet

On Thursday, February 18, Seven Days is teaming up with Channel 17/Town Meeting Television to host a public debate about Instant Runoff Voting. On Town Meeting Day, Burlington voters will have the opportunity to weigh in on whether the city should continue to use IRV to elect the mayor.

The debate will be between two IRV supporters, Rep. Mark Larson and Keri Toksu of the League of Women Voters, and two IRV opponents, Burlington lawyer Sandy Baird and Chuck Selene of One Person One Vote. 

A media panel, including Shay Totten of Seven Days, Bianca Slota of WCAX and John Briggs of the Burlington Free Press, will ask questions. Jess Wilson of Channel 17 will moderate. The audience will also have an opportunity to ask questions. There will be a mike for audience members, and we'll be taking questions via a live chat on this blog.

The fun starts on Thursday, February 18, at 7 p.m. Come to Burlington City Hall Auditorium, or watch the debate live on Burlington Telecom and Comcast channel 17, or on the Seven Days website. Want to tweet about it? We're using the hashtag #btvirv.

Comments

[one_vermonter]

IRV just feels like a solution without a problem.

Abe Lincoln won the presidency with 40% of the vote. Bill Clinton with 43%. Woodrow Wilson with 42%. Nobody questioned their legitimacy, their power or their right to govern.

Heck, Bernie Sanders himself didn't get 50% of the vote when he won his first election for mayor of Burlap. Today, few supporters of IRV would find fault with the outcome of that election. If we had IRV in 1981, it's quite possible that Sander's political career would never have gotten off of the ground.

Our democracy is functioning well without IRV. Let's reject it now so that we can focus on more pressing issues.

[robert bristow-johnson]

If the old law was in effect, the 2009 election would have gone to runoff with Kurt Wright vs. Bob Kiss. if the turnout on Runoff Day was comparable to that of Election Day, then the result would be no different than it was with IRV. but if, because of reduced voter turnout, Kurt Wright squeeked out a "victory" against the explicit wishes of the majority of Burlington voters, that would be a problem.

the mayoral election in Burlington in 2009 *did* suffer several anomalies or pathologies due to the way that IRV tabulates the vote and decides the winner. it *did* screw up, but the screwup was not that Kurt Wright wasn't elected. the screw up was that the pairwise majority-preferred candidate (the candidate who beats any other candidate when paired against them), Andy Montroll, was not elected. the screwup was that the presence of a candidate who finally did not win himself actually changed who the winner was (a spoiler-lite). the screwup is that the GOP Prog-haters had actually caused the election of the candidate they liked least, simply for voting for the candidate they liked the most.

those are screwups, but it would be worse with the old plurality-rule method.

and, the historical fact is that at the time, people *did* question the legitimacy of Lincoln's election and his right to govern. same with Clinton, same with W, and even with Obama with his 53% mandate.

[Haik Bedrosian]

IRV necessitates the transportation of ballots to city hall for tabulation. This adds opportunities for fraud as computer chips and or ballots might, theoretically, be switched during transport.

[one_vermonter]

Robert just made the greatest argument against IRV ever.

KISS -- Keep It Simple, Smarty.

One person, one vote.

The person with the most votes, wins.

It's worked for a long time. Our voting laws weren't broken before IRV came along. There was no reason to try to 'fix' them.

[Alex Reutter]

re: the idea that IRV gives a person more than "one vote"

Last March, Ward 7 voters did not elect a winner between Vincent Dober, Ellie Blais, and Eli Lesser-Goldsmith on March 3 and a runoff was held at a later date between Dober and Lesser-Goldsmith. Believing that IRV gives a person more than one vote is equivalent to believing that people who voted for Blais on March 3 should not have been allowed to participate in the runoff election on the later date.

IRV fixes the very real problem that an extra election date costs money; not just the direct costs of holding the extra election, but the wasted time of the approximately 1000 voters who voted on the morning of the runoff date.

[Haik Bedrosian]

Alex, how is something that's never happened before a "very real problem?"

[Alex Reutter]

Haik, we had a special runoff for Ward 7 city councilor. If we elected councilors via IRV, the costs of that special election would have been avoided.

Also, while opponents of IRV have claimed that there has never been a runoff election for Mayor, this is disingenous at best and disinformation at worst -- we have had runoffs in the past two mayoral elections, but were spared the expense of a separate city-wide mayoral runoff date because we had IRV.

[Haik Bedrosian]

The question of using IRV for city council races is not on the ballot this election. The question of whether to repeal the use of IRV in mayoral elections is.

We do not know if there would have been a runoff in either the 2006 or 2009 races had we not employed IRV. All we know is that there had never been one previously. I guess one might say IRV saved us from runoffs in the last two, but that is speculation, not fact, and one ought to know the difference.

I will say I find it ticklishly ironic- both that in 2006 Bob would have missed the old 40% cut-off by a scant 1%, but nobody made much of it since he was the plurality and condorcet winner anyway, and that in 2009 he was neither but still won.

The truth is that in a frictionless universe that worked the way it should in theory- that guy Robert Bristow is right. The IRV supporters shouldn't really be supporting IRV- they should be supporting the idea of using the condorcet tabulation method instead because that is even more small-d-democratic than IRV.

I imagine their arguments against that, if any would face the question squarely, would look and sound somewhat similar to the agruments being made in favor of the old plurality system now. Namely, it's simpler, easier to understand for more people and thus increases participation, and the overall perception that the winner is legitimate.

But regardless I haven't heard anyone address my main concern with IRV, and I'll repeat it- IRV necessitates the transportation of ballots to city hall for tabulation. This adds opportunities for fraud as computer chips and or ballots might, theoretically, be switched during transport.

Anyone want to try knocking that down, and explain why that shouldn't be a concern?

[Alex Reutter]

Haik, the point about the City Councilor election is that IRV would have saved the cost of a special runoff. Assuming that the last two mayoral elections would have gone to special runoffs based on the IRV results seems fairly safe, and hiding behind "that's speculation, not fact" is blowing smoke.

I would personally prefer condorcet tabulation, but that's not on the ballot. :p

I really don't know enough about the security issues for transporting the ballots to comment, but that's a good question.

[Haik Bedrosian]

Alex, there are no safe assumptions and one never knows what might have been; Well played in pointing out condorcet's absence from the ballot. I certainly asked for that; and we'll see if somone else has an answer to the transport security question. Cheers.

[sean]

"Haik, the point about the City Councilor election is that IRV would have saved the cost of a special runoff."

There are far greater concerns in a democracy than the cost of an election.

Funny, Progs are only concerned about public expenditures when it comes to Burlington elections. On every other issue, they can't spend enough of other people's money. Funny.

[Neil]

So lets see if we can summarize:
Against IRV
- People are stupid and confused by ranking a first, second, third, etc choice. They're obviously stupid because they didn't vote for my candidate.
- Blackwater (aka Xe), Mossad, Dr. Evil, or possibly the A-Team might interrupt the vehicles carrying the ballots to City Hall for Tabulation and rig an election.
- Encourages Multi-party Democracy (who wants to be like Europe or Canada anyway?!?!)

For IRV
- Could save money under some circumstances
- Would require a charter change to undo. Who wants to spend energy doing that?
- Encourages Multi-party democracy

I'm not trying to make fun of anyone in particular here, just pointing out that the arguments for are negligible and the arguments against seem to involve a lack of willingness to educate the public on civics and a rather unhealthy fear of black helicopters.

[Haik Bedrosian]

It doesn't take Blackwater or Dr. Evil to swap out a computer chip, neil. And even though I'd like to see IRV repealed, Bob Kiss was my first choice vote in the last two elections, so your stereotype fails just like all stereotypes. You will bring Captain Solo and the Wookie to me and you will vote yes on question 5.

[Neil]

Any sort of attack that could be acomplished by sending the results to city hall could be just as easily done by corrupt elections workers at a polling location under the old system. If you're going to attack a sysstem for its requirement that the data needs to make it back to a centrail point, don't ignore the fact that no system is 100% secure. Heck, if you have access to the hardware and time to study it, you could probably develop a phsical hack that ignores every second or third scan and replaces it with results that you want on those scantron machines. Election fraud happens in a lot of places that don't have IRV.

The real issue is that the public needs to be educated about the system, the candidates, and the issues before voting. If you're just a straight partyline voter, IRV definitely is not for you. Those people who educate themselves on the issues and the candidates have more power under IRV through second and third choices. I hope one thing everyone can agree on is that strong civics education is essential for a strong democracy.

[Haik Bedrosian]

Any sort of attack that could be acomplished by sending the results to city hall could be just as easily done by corrupt elections workers at a polling location under the old system.

That's wrong of course, because the same effort cheat would have to be made seven times over to occur at each of the polling places, and there would be many more eyes on the process at a polling place than there would be in a car between the polling place and city hall. You're wrong.

[MisterGuy]

If you think IRV is "complex" (it really isn't BTW...it's just ranking candidates yanno), then you'll just *love* "the condorcet tabulation method"...it's waaaay more complex than IRV.

Talk about a solution without a problem:
"IRV necessitates the transportation of ballots to city hall for tabulation. This adds opportunities for fraud as computer chips and or ballots might, theoretically, be switched during transport."

When has there ever been voter fraud with IRV?? Hint: Your "theoretical" concerns are based on blind fear-mongering, period. But, of course, you'll keep repeating them like they are "real" concerns anyways...ugh... BTW, aren't all the ballots transported to City Hall under guard?

---------------------------------

"the mayoral election in Burlington in 2009 *did* suffer several anomalies or pathologies"

No, it really didn't.

"the screw up was that the pairwise majority-preferred candidate (the candidate who beats any other candidate when paired against them), Andy Montroll, was not elected"

...because the actual election in question was a five-person race, not a series of imaginary two-person races that might have existed in some alternative universe.

"the screwup was that the presence of a candidate who finally did not win himself actually changed who the winner was (a spoiler-lite)."

It's kind of hard to call the guy that came in *second* a "spoiler". Again, alternate universes where down is up & Bizaro Superman is Superman don't count.

[Neil]

Quote Haik: That's wrong of course, because the same effort cheat would have to be made seven times over to occur at each of the polling places, and there would be many more eyes on the process at a polling place than there would be in a car between the polling place and city hall. You're wrong.

Why would you need to affect results in all wards? One ward could be enough to swing it if you're talking about going back to a simple 40% majority. Yes, the more wards you compromise the easier it would be to hide the tampering, but seriously.. as MisterGuy said, the election fraud arguement is specious at best. No real advantage in either system.

If you want to go back to a winner takes all, make it a >50%. At least then you know half of the citizens like the results. Of course, requiring a >50% tally would mean virtually every mayoral election moving forward would end in a runoff which would get pretty darn expensive... which is why IRV makes so much sense in the first place.

[Haik Bedrosian]

Whatever. No system is perfect, but it's still easier to swap out a memory card if the card has to travel. When the ballots are counted on the spot at each of the polling places, all eyes are on them and there's less time between the polls closing and the counting. IRV adds more opportunities for cheating, there isn't a doubt in my mind.

[MisterDouche]

MisterGuy: Prog troll.

[Thomas]

Repeal IRV.

Its easier to vote for someone rather than some ones.

If we don't get to a majority vote,lets have a real runoff where the voters focus on the top two choices.

IRV is for theorists. When we reach utopia, I will vote for IRV - I promise.

[robert bristow-johnson]

Haik, I think the issue that you were alluding to (the necessity to count IRV ballots centrally) is called "precinct summability". If you're willing to have enough piles of ballots, any method is "precinct summable", that is ballots can be counted at the precinct, the count results can be promulgated publicly (with interested parties monitoring and transmitting the same sums to their campaign headquarters) which would make it difficult for the ballots to be swapped en-route to City Hall (or wherever the central counting place is).

Plurality and Condorcet are simply and elegantly precinct summable, but IRV requires a pile for every possible manner that a ballot could be marked. For 3 candidates, that would be 9 piles (and therefore 9 sums to transmit upward to the central counting location). For 4 candidates, it would be 40 piles (and 40 different sums) and the number of piles increases damn fast for more candidates than that. For Plurality it would be one pile per candidate and for Condorcet it would be one pair of sums for each pairing of candidates (3 sum pairs for 3 candidates, 6 sum pairs for 4 candidates, etc. ...)

It *is* a useful and legitimate concern to have precinct summability for statewide and nationwide elections. For a city as small as ours, I think the logistics of securely transmitting ballots to City Hall ain't so bad.

[robert bristow-johnson]

Alex and/or Haik, about Condorcet not being on the ballot next month: Think about it a little, one side or the other is going to lose next month. The side that loses will have their interests served far more with Condorcet than they will with whatever they're gonna get. And the side that wins will have their *legitimate* concerns addressed with Condorcet. It's a consensus methods that uses the same ranked-ballot that IRV uses (except Condorcet allows for ties on a single ballot).

But, instead, we're gonna have this knock-down, drag-out, go-for-broke slugfest that leaves only one side standing. Just like with the two-party system, it's up or down with IRV.

But the problem with the two-party system that we were trying to avoid with a ranked-ballot in the first place is that sometimes our choice with the two parties is between Dumb and Dumber. When Dumb and Dumber is our major party choice, we *need* viable third parties and independents to break out of that rut and keep both major parties focused on the needs of the electorate. What is so ironic in the up-or-down vote with IRV is that again, sadly, our choice is between Dumb and Dumber. So I guess I'll have to vote for Dumb and be prepared that Dumber will win.

[MisterGuy]

"Whatever. No system is perfect, but it's still easier to swap out a memory card if the card has to travel."

Whatever indeed Haik...your continued whining on this complete & total *non-issue* is a real bore at this point.

-------------------------------
"MisterDouche"...Internet Troll, period.

-------------------------------

"Its easier to vote for someone rather than some ones."

Yea, because ranking one's choices is so, so very "hard"...not...
-------------------------------

Burlington will quite simply never have a Condorcet method way of voting implemented. Condorcet methods have not ever been used in govt. elections anywhere in the world.

[Thomas]

MisterGuy, you are obviously so much smarter than everyone, I abdicate my right to vote and will follow you. Thanks for shining the light into all my dark corners.

[Haik Bedrosian]

You can say I'm whining or that the potential for cheating is a non-issue, but those are opinions, not facts.

What facts can you offer to ameliorate my concerns?

[Cathy Resmer]

I hope you're all coming to the debate tonight.

[carol]

will it be broadcast live on the 'net?

if so, what is the exact address?

[MisterGuy]

Thanks once again for yet another non-response response "Tommy"...you truly are a waste of everyone's time...ugh...

-----------------------------

"What facts can you offer to ameliorate my concerns?"

There haven't been any instances of actual voter fraud with IRV. Also, I'm pretty darn sure that the ballots don't get transported from one place to another without an escort. This isn't Chicago where the dead vote...this is Burlington VT...wake up...fear-mongering is so 2003 Haik...

[sean]

@ misterdink: shut the hell up

[MisterGuy]

LOL...

[Owen Mulligan]

MisterGuy is a troll alright. He frequently makes rude personal attacks over on our repeal IRV blog but now we just delete his posts. I would just ignore everything he says because it's just worthless dribble.

[MisterGuy]

"MisterGuy is a troll alright."

In your dreams that is. Still hurting from the time that we tangled over the Moran issue eh Mr. Mulligan?? LOL...

"He frequently makes rude personal attacks over on our repeal IRV blog but now we just delete his posts."

Huh??

Simply deleting posts from those that you don't agree with is the sign of a truly weak position BTW.