Open thread: Ranked voting activism

Comment on Open thread: Ranked voting activism

Current Discussion

• Hi, I've started a new Yahoo Group for New York State. The old one InstantRunoffNY has been dead since October, 2006. I encourage all New Yorkers to join IRV4NY at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IRV4NY

  Posted by William Cerf, 06/04/2007 (3 years ago)

• My county and all but one of its incorporated cities lack home rule charters. Under California law, they can't adopt IRV or STV unless state law is changed. So our local emphasis is on Assembly Bill 1294, which would do just that. Our main activity right now is seeking endorsements of the bill from city and county elected officials. We helped persuade our representative in the legislature to become a coauthor. We are also planning a public forum to bring together representatives of ranked voting, campaign finance reform, election integrity and other issues on one platform. We will be working with the local League of Women Voters on this. A couple of other things that I think all electoral reform activists should do locally: (1) Serve as a pollworker on election day. You get to learn about election administration first hand, and over time you become known to local election administrators as someone who pitches in and helps out. (2) If there's a citizens committee that advises local election officials, apply to serve on it. If you're not selected, go to every meeting anyway and participate actively (after a couple of months of this, I was appointed as a regular member). (3) The same thing goes for charter review commissions, governance task forces, and similar bodies. Even if you don't get appointed, go to every meeting and become and active participant. Learn about the issues other than ranked voting that these bodies are dealing with. (4) Groups like Kiwanis, Lions Club, Rotary, etc. are often looking for speakers to fill out their agendas. We're going to start approaching them as soon as there's time. An aside to Wilf Day: IRV is the best single-winner method for public elections. However, all single-winner methods fail to provide fair representation ... This comment reflects Canadian political institutions, where there are few (if any) elected executive officers. In the U.S., executive office elections are extremely important and voters are more interested in them than in legislative elections. So IRV would be important here even if we could adopt proportional methods immediately (which we can't).

  Posted by Bob Richard, 05/29/2007 (3 years ago)

• Just to state the obvious for those new to the field: For local elections where partisan considerations are not paramount, and independents may be prevalent, the only workable proportional system is STV (called in the USA "ranked choice voting," a confusing term since it sounds dangerously like IRV.) For elections in a system where party accountability matters, especially parliamentary systems such as we have in Canada, a Mixed Member Proportional system may provide the most familiar proportional alternative to First-Past-The-Post. This is why the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform recently recommended, by a final vote of 94 to 8, to recommend to Ontario citizens an MMP model they had designed (with expert advice). It goes to a referendum October 10th. IRV is the best single-winner method for public elections. However, all single-winner methods fail to provide fair representation and fair election results, and fail to provide voters with a greater range of effective choices. Replacing single-winner methods with proportional methods will, where achievable, be the best alternative.

  Posted by Wilf Day, 05/29/2007 (3 years ago)