[EL] RCV in San Francisco

[Kogan, Vladimir]

Rob,

I don’t want to drag out the conversation/debate, and I agree with much of what you wrote. I do want to make one point: We’ve found<http://glenn.osu.edu/educational-governance/research/research-attributes/KLP_Timing.pdf> (much to my surprise) that the difference in the composition of the electorate between primary elections and November even-year midterm elections is actually smaller than the differences in composition between presidential November elections and midterm November elections. (The difference between primaries and odd-year November elections is even smaller.) So if one is concerned about electorate composition and representativeness, I think the distinction between presidential November elections and all others is more important than between different type of lower-turnout elections.

Vlad

PS: My concern is that we might see more “Perot”-type candidacies under RCV than we do today, since the threat of potentially splitting the vote and producing the worst possible outcome, which kept Bloomberg from running, would be diminished.

[The Ohio State University]
Vladimir Kogan, Associate Professor
Department of Political Science
2004 Derby Hall | 154 N. Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210-1373
510/415-4074 Mobile
614/292-9498 Office
614/292-1146 Fax
http://u.osu.edu/kogan.18/
kogan.18 at osu.edu<mailto:kogan.18 at osu.edu>


From: Rob Richie [mailto:rr at fairvote.org]
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 10:24 AM
To: Kogan, Vladimir
Cc: Rick Hasen; Election Law Listserv
Subject: Re: [EL] RCV in San Francisco

I'm glad you do see RCV as a contextual improvement. Context always is important.

My final points on this today will be:

* The data doesn't suggest that RCV will results in candidates winning with fewer votes than plurality. Candidates of course do "forge on" within plurality toady. When Perot ran in 1992, only one of 50 states was one with a majority of the vote. RCV would clearly have been an improvement. And if the major parties are truly so unrepresentative and so much in need of "propping up" that we must maintain unfair voting rules, we have far deeper problems to consider.

* Winnowing the field to two in low turnout, highly unrepresentative electorates to me is highly problematic. Several cities have gone to RCV  exactly because the data from such primaries revealed the disturbingly small and unrepresentative nature of electorates that often determined outcomes. That's one of my biggest concerns with Top Two in California in contrast to ways that RCV could improve it:  the turnout in June is much less representative of the electorate than November especially among Hispanic voters and young voters. Yet those Top Two primaries in June effectively decide all but a handful of races, leaving the far more representative November electorates with pretty rubber stamps, but little meaningful role in defining their representation.

* For those compelled to correct the "RCV is designed to uphold majority rule" argument, I just hope they also rigorously challenge claims about primary runoff elections, given their problems And I would say that what advocates often say isn't unreasonable in a world in which we accept imperfection: with RCV you can't win in the first round without a majority and you can't win in the last round without a majority over your top opponent, at least among those with a preference between those candidates -- and that far more voters on average will express that final round preference than come back for a runoff.

Thanks,
Rob

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180630/6b4c9bda/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3605 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180630/6b4c9bda/attachment.png>