[EL] Law-election Digest, Vol 86, Issue 26

Sat Jun 30 17:25:59 PDT 2018

Well the whole argument is problematic. You are ignoring the fact that in the south and southwest the level of functional literacy that Hispanics operate on makes it very difficult for them to deal with the complications of these systems.  In my view these things are potentially more discriminatory than gerrymandering and voter I’d requirements.

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of Steven John Mulroy (smulroy) <smulroy at memphis.edu>
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 5:14:50 PM
To: law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Law-election Digest, Vol 86, Issue 26

This debate about whether RCV elections are truly majority result elections is semantics. In both two round regular elections and RCV elections, the ultimate winner has a majority of final round votes. In RCV elections, this is usually also a majority of total first-round votes. But very often this does not happen, because of exhausted ballots.

 But in two round elections, the ultimate winner is even less likely to have a majority of first-round votes, because of the sharp drop off in  turnout between the first round and the runoff. So by this definition, neither is a majority winner system. And plurality is even less of a majority winner system.

But if your criterion is the frequency with which the ultimate winner wins in the final round with a majority of first round total votes, then RCV is  clearly superior to either  plurality or two round run off systems, which are the two alternatives it is usually compared to in the real world in the US.

Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse typos.

> On Jun 30, 2018, at 3:00 PM, "law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu" <law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu> wrote:
>
> Send Law-election mailing list submissions to
>    law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>    https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>    law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>    law-election-owner at department-lists.uci.edu
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Law-election digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. RCV in San Francisco (Kogan, Vladimir)
>   2. Re: RCV in San Francisco (Thomas J. Cares)
>   3. Re: RCV in San Francisco (Kogan, Vladimir)
>   4. Re: RCV in San Francisco (Rob Richie)
>   5. Re: RCV in San Francisco (Kogan, Vladimir)
>   6. Re: RCV in San Francisco (Rob Richie)
>   7. Re: RCV in San Francisco (Kogan, Vladimir)
>   8. 4 or 5 states may elect statewide independent candidates this
>      year, a record (Richard Winger)
>   9. Re: RCV in San Francisco (Rob Richie)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 21:38:29 +0000
> From: "Kogan, Vladimir" <kogan.18 at osu.edu>
> To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>, Election Law Listserv
>    <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: [EL] RCV in San Francisco
> Message-ID:
>    <DDC97B3393E2AB4C85D66A2817A2C348CA527D5B at CIO-TNC-D2MBX06.osuad.osu.edu>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Sorry to sound like a broken record, but the highlighted section below is clearly incorrect:
>
> ?SF Elections are Working ? and Getting Even Better?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99861>
> Posted on June 28, 2018 3:53 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99861> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Oped<http://www.sfexaminer.com/sf-elections-working-getting-even-better/> from By SF election commissioners Charlotte Hill<http://www.sfexaminer.com/author/charlotte-hill/>, Christopher Jerdonek<http://www.sfexaminer.com/author/christopher-jerdonek/> and Viva Mo<http://www.sfexaminer.com/author/viva-mogi/>gi:
>
> The current RCV system also facilitated higher voter participation than the previous December runoff system, which San Francisco used until 2004. Under that system, the first election occurred in November, followed by a second race in December if no candidate won an initial majority. Voter turnout often plummeted in the December runoff, on average by 31 percent. In the 2001 runoff for city attorney, less than 17% of registered voters participated. In the 1995 mayoral election, the number of voters declined by nearly 10 percentage points from November to December.
>
> Some have asked why San Francisco does not use the ?plurality? voting method, in which the highest vote-getter wins. Plurality voting is used to elect many governors, senators, and the president. But if plurality had been used in our mayoral election, the winner would have been elected with less than 37% of the vote, with more than 60% of voters casting a ballot for another candidate. The goal of any runoff system is to ensure that the winner has a majority (50% + 1) of the vote and is the candidate preferred by the most voters. San Francisco?s ?instant runoff? elections fulfill both goals, but without the expense?both for taxpayers and candidates?of a separate runoff election. San Francisco saves approximately $3.5 million by not holding a second citywide election.
> Due to high rates of ballot exhaustion<http://u.osu.edu/kogan.18/files/2014/12/ElectoralStudies-2fupfhd.pdf>, the winner often does not get ?a majority (50%+1) of the vote and is the candidate preferred by the most voters.? The most recent mayoral election is Exhibit 1: London Breed won with 45.6 of the vote.
>
> Vlad Kogan
>
> [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>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180629/a16dd86c/attachment-0001.html>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image004.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 3605 bytes
> Desc: image004.png
> URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180629/a16dd86c/attachment-0001.png>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 15:39:21 -0700
> From: "Thomas J. Cares" <Tom at tomcares.com>
> To: "Kogan, Vladimir" <kogan.18 at osu.edu>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] RCV in San Francisco
> Message-ID:
>    <CADE9kw-PU2xd=HOHTBY=AA1xv8u3LYQ_=5T8vbuTMRKVbfSuWg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Think of it as simulated runoffs. If you don?t rank one of the 2 final
> contenders to-be, you?ve sat out the potential runoff between them, albeit
> being as convenient as possible for you.
>
> No one will take into account the number of primary voters, who abstained
> from the general, when they report Newsom?s percentage of votes in
> November.
>
> -Tom Cares
>
>
>
>
>> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 2:40 PM Kogan, Vladimir <kogan.18 at osu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry to sound like a broken record, but the highlighted section below is
>> clearly incorrect:
>>
>>
>> ?SF Elections are Working ? and Getting Even Better?
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99861>
>>
>> Posted on June 28, 2018 3:53 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99861> by *Rick
>> Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Oped <http://www.sfexaminer.com/sf-elections-working-getting-even-better/> from By
>> SF election commissioners *Charlotte Hill*
>> <http://www.sfexaminer.com/author/charlotte-hill/>, *Christopher Jerdonek*
>> <http://www.sfexaminer.com/author/christopher-jerdonek/> and *Viva Mo*
>> <http://www.sfexaminer.com/author/viva-mogi/>gi:
>>
>> *The current RCV system also facilitated higher voter participation than
>> the previous December runoff system, which San Francisco used until 2004.
>> Under that system, the first election occurred in November, followed by a
>> second race in December if no candidate won an initial majority. Voter
>> turnout often plummeted in the December runoff, on average by 31 percent.
>> In the 2001 runoff for city attorney, less than 17% of registered voters
>> participated. In the 1995 mayoral election, the number of voters declined
>> by nearly 10 percentage points from November to December.*
>>
>> *Some have asked why San Francisco does not use the ?plurality? voting
>> method, in which the highest vote-getter wins. Plurality voting is used to
>> elect many governors, senators, and the president. But if plurality had
>> been used in our mayoral election, the winner would have been elected with
>> less than 37% of the vote, with more than 60% of voters casting a ballot
>> for another candidate. The goal of any runoff system is to ensure that the
>> winner has a majority (50% + 1) of the vote and is the candidate preferred
>> by the most voters. San Francisco?s ?instant runoff? elections fulfill both
>> goals, but without the expense?both for taxpayers and candidates?of a
>> separate runoff election. San Francisco saves approximately $3.5 million by
>> not holding a second citywide election.*
>>
>> Due to high rates of ballot exhaustion
>> <http://u.osu.edu/kogan.18/files/2014/12/ElectoralStudies-2fupfhd.pdf>,
>> the winner often does not get ?a majority (50%+1) of the vote and is the
>> candidate preferred by the most voters.? The most recent mayoral election
>> is Exhibit 1: London Breed won with 45.6 of the vote.
>>
>>
>>
>> Vlad Kogan
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Law-election mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180629/89dea8ea/attachment-0001.html>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image004.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 3605 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180629/89dea8ea/attachment-0001.png>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 22:43:17 +0000
> From: "Kogan, Vladimir" <kogan.18 at osu.edu>
> To: "Thomas J. Cares" <Tom at tomcares.com>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] RCV in San Francisco
> Message-ID:
>    <DDC97B3393E2AB4C85D66A2817A2C348CA527E8C at CIO-TNC-D2MBX06.osuad.osu.edu>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Sure, but this is different from the claim that the winner has a majority of the votes. And much depends on why people don?t rank the two final contenders. If they are indifferent, we shouldn?t be too worried about. But if those with exhausted ballots have a preference between the two (not expressed on the ranked ballots, for whatever reason), then we can?t conclude that the candidate that wins is ?preferred by the most voters.?
>
> [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: Thomas J. Cares [mailto:Tom at tomcares.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 6:39 PM
> To: Kogan, Vladimir
> Cc: Election Law Listserv
> Subject: Re: [EL] RCV in San Francisco
>
> Think of it as simulated runoffs. If you don?t rank one of the 2 final contenders to-be, you?ve sat out the potential runoff between them, albeit being as convenient as possible for you.
>
> No one will take into account the number of primary voters, who abstained from the general, when they report Newsom?s percentage of votes in November.
>
> -Tom Cares
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 2:40 PM Kogan, Vladimir <kogan.18 at osu.edu<mailto:kogan.18 at osu.edu>> wrote:
> Sorry to sound like a broken record, but the highlighted section below is clearly incorrect:
>
> ?SF Elections are Working ? and Getting Even Better?<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99861>
> Posted on June 28, 2018 3:53 pm<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99861> by Rick Hasen<http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Oped<http://www.sfexaminer.com/sf-elections-working-getting-even-better/> from By SF election commissioners Charlotte Hill<http://www.sfexaminer.com/author/charlotte-hill/>, Christopher Jerdonek<http://www.sfexaminer.com/author/christopher-jerdonek/> and Viva Mo<http://www.sfexaminer.com/author/viva-mogi/>gi:
>
> The current RCV system also facilitated higher voter participation than the previous December runoff system, which San Francisco used until 2004. Under that system, the first election occurred in November, followed by a second race in December if no candidate won an initial majority. Voter turnout often plummeted in the December runoff, on average by 31 percent. In the 2001 runoff for city attorney, less than 17% of registered voters participated. In the 1995 mayoral election, the number of voters declined by nearly 10 percentage points from November to December.
>
> Some have asked why San Francisco does not use the ?plurality? voting method, in which the highest vote-getter wins. Plurality voting is used to elect many governors, senators, and the president. But if plurality had been used in our mayoral election, the winner would have been elected with less than 37% of the vote, with more than 60% of voters casting a ballot for another candidate. The goal of any runoff system is to ensure that the winner has a majority (50% + 1) of the vote and is the candidate preferred by the most voters. San Francisco?s ?instant runoff? elections fulfill both goals, but without the expense?both for taxpayers and candidates?of a separate runoff election. San Francisco saves approximately $3.5 million by not holding a second citywide election.
> Due to high rates of ballot exhaustion<http://u.osu.edu/kogan.18/files/2014/12/ElectoralStudies-2fupfhd.pdf>, the winner often does not get ?a majority (50%+1) of the vote and is the candidate preferred by the most voters.? The most recent mayoral election is Exhibit 1: London Breed won with 45.6 of the vote.
>
> Vlad Kogan
>
> [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>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180629/ab8f8b83/attachment-0001.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/20180629/ab8f8b83/attachment-0001.png>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2018 09:25:57 -0400
> From: Rob Richie <rr at fairvote.org>
> To: "Kogan, Vladimir" <kogan.18 at osu.edu>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] RCV in San Francisco
> Message-ID:
>    <CAM2RZHYrRp5+MabCUV6oofZfnUmfQ5EF63U3uw=Ph02Lyv5bwQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Vlad,
>
> I find your "broken record" repetition on this  topic overly selective.
> I'll make three points that include a correction and what I trust are
> several useful numbers
>
> *  You suggested last week that FairVote has given up on the goal of
> representative outcomes -- that is, fair representation of both those in
> the majority and the minority. That's not true. We just accept the
> realities of imperfection. You set up ranked choice voting in contrast to a
> theoretical model of majoritarian perfection that our current systems don't
> remotely achieve.  Note, however, one could achieve your goal if we
> followed Australia's model of mandating voting and mandating rankings.
> Every RCV winner in Australia's House elections must earn a majority of
> votes from registered voters who didn't want to risk being fined and who
> cast a valid ballot.
>
> * But we don't mandate voting in the USA and that's not FairVote's fight.
> Americans don't include the huge majorities of eligible and registered
> voters who don't vote in our primaries  (and most of our other elections)
> in the "denominator" when we report percentages for winners. We don't
> report undervotes when reporting winning majorities. If we did, we'd have
> lots of low single digit "winners." And to be clear, the primary runoff
> elections that you seem to give a free pass make it WORSE on average, not
> better. We're now just over halfway through the primary season, and there
> have been 23 primary runoff elections. Notably
>
> -- The median runoff primary winner earned LESS than their vote total in
> the first round. This obviously can never happen with ranked choice voting
>
> --- The 23 winners all earned Vlad-defined "majorities" in the runoff, but
> all but nine of them earned less than a third of the first round primary
> vote. Only three surpassed the 46.2% earned by London Breed in San
> Francisco despite the ballot that that limits rankings to three. (Vlad is
> using the wrong denominator in San Francisco, as he counts first round
> undervotes that no one uses when determining majorities in elections that
> might go to runoffs.)
>
> -- Of those three relatively strong runoff showings, only two had
> majorities of the 1st round: one got 50.6% of the 1st round and the other
> 55.4%
>
> -- In addition the runoff candidates might not be the most representative
> candidates. The top two finishers in runoffs can include candidates who get
> to the runoff only due to split votes. We've in fact had important runoffs
> recently under "Top Two primary" rules where no candidates from the party
> with the most primary votes made the runoff - that happened in 2016 in the
> Washington State treasurer race (affecting Democrats) and a Georgia state
> senate special election (affecting Republicans.) RCV is far more reliable
> to have the strongest two candidates make the final round -- not with 100%
> perfection, but clearly an improvement over runoffs without an RCV ballot.
>
> --- Of course, most of our primaries this year have been held with
> plurality rules. 10 winners of US House and US Senate primaries earned less
> than 30%, and another 16 won less than 40%. Two (WV-3 and PA-13) Republican
> primaries were won with less than 24% in heavily GOP district that Trump
> won by more than 50%. Interesting to think about from a view of "majority
> rule."
>
> * So let's look at RCV, which absolutely outperforms plurality and runoff
> elections -- it's not even close. Maine used RCV for the 1st time, with
> very limited state-financed voter education.  Democrats had more valid
> votes for governor in a primary than ever before in state history. Two
> primaries requiring instant runoffs - the governor's race and the 2nd
> congressional district. The impact of RCV were:
>
> - Governor:  Janet Mills went 33.09% in the first round to 50.2% of the
> first round vote total (and 54.1% of active votes in final round).
>
> - CD-2: Jared Golden went 46.4% of the first round from an instant runoff
> found of 54.3% of the first round vote total - that is, a higher winning
> percentage than all but one of the 23 congressional primary runoff winners
> this year using the same measure.
>
> - But that's not all. These candidates were also seeking support from
> backers of their final round opponent in a very real, meaningful way that
> they knew might help them win in the campaign. London Breed was ranked 2nd
> or 3rd by nearly half of her final round opponent's backers, giving her a
> top three ranking from 63% of San Francisco voters In the governor's race
> in Maine, Janet Mills was the top 2nd choice of backers of her final round
> opponent Adam Cote, and 47% of his supporters ranked her 2nd or 3rd. In
> other words, if you add the votes she had in the final round with Cote
> votes ranking here highly she had the active backing of well over 70% of
> Democrats. That's an impressive improvement from having only 33% of 1st
> choices , and a nice reflection of the value of  Mills "seeking consensus"
> in her RCV campaign.
>
> So Vlad, please excuse me if I don't see your argument as a reason not to
> improve our elections with ranked choice voting
>
> Thanks for reading,
> Rob
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> On Friday, June 29, 2018, Kogan, Vladimir <kogan.18 at osu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry to sound like a broken record, but the highlighted section below is
>> clearly incorrect:
>>
>>
>> ?SF Elections are Working ? and Getting Even Better?
>> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99861>
>>
>> Posted on June 28, 2018 3:53 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=99861> by *Rick
>> Hasen* <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>>
>> Oped <http://www.sfexaminer.com/sf-elections-working-getting-even-better/> from By
>> SF election commissioners *Charlotte Hill*
>> <http://www.sfexaminer.com/author/charlotte-hill/>, *Christopher Jerdonek*
>> <http://www.sfexaminer.com/author/christopher-jerdonek/> and *Viva Mo*
>> <http://www.sfexaminer.com/author/viva-mogi/>gi:
>>
>> *The current RCV system also facilitated higher voter participation than
>> the previous December runoff system, which San Francisco used until 2004.
>> Under that system, the first election occurred in November, followed by a
>> second race in December if no candidate won an initial majority. Voter
>> turnout often plummeted in the December runoff, on average by 31 percent.
>> In the 2001 runoff for city attorney, less than 17% of registered voters
>> participated. In the 1995 mayoral election, the number of voters declined
>> by nearly 10 percentage points from November to December.*
>>
>> *Some have asked why San Francisco does not use the ?plurality? voting
>> method, in which the highest vote-getter wins. Plurality voting is used to
>> elect many governors, senators, and the president. But if plurality had
>> been used in our mayoral election, the winner would have been elected with
>> less than 37% of the vote, with more than 60% of voters casting a ballot
>> for another candidate. The goal of any runoff system is to ensure that the
>> winner has a majority (50% + 1) of the vote and is the candidate preferred
>> by the most voters. San Francisco?s ?instant runoff? elections fulfill both
>> goals, but without the expense?both for taxpayers and candidates?of a
>> separate runoff election. San Francisco saves approximately $3.5 million by
>> not holding a second citywide election.*
>>
>> Due to high rates of ballot exhaustion
>> <http://u.osu.edu/kogan.18/files/2014/12/ElectoralStudies-2fupfhd.pdf>,
>> the winner often does not get ?a majority (50%+1) of the vote and is the
>> candidate preferred by the most voters.? The most recent mayoral election
>> is Exhibit 1: London Breed won with 45.6 of the vote.
>>
>>
>>
>> Vlad Kogan
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: 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
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180630/6c14ee1b/attachment-0001.html>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image004.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 3605 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180630/6c14ee1b/attachment-0001.png>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:04:01 +0000
> From: "Kogan, Vladimir" <kogan.18 at osu.edu>
> To: Rob Richie <rr at fairvote.org>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] RCV in San Francisco
> Message-ID:
>    <DDC97B3393E2AB4C85D66A2817A2C348CA5284DA at CIO-TNC-D2MBX06.osuad.osu.edu>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Rob,
>
> Thanks for correcting my calculation! I would stop raising this point repeatedly if RCV proponents stopped continuing to claim that ?the goal of any runoff system is to ensure that the winner has a majority (50% + 1) of the vote and is the candidate preferred by the most voters. [Jurisdiction?s name] ?instant runoff? elections fulfill both goals.? When you say Fair Vote accepts the realities of imperfection, that sounds like you agree that RCV does not necessarily fulfill either goal. It would be great if advocates stopped making this argument.
>
> I completely agree with you that RCV can be an improvement in many cases. San Francisco?s previous system of holding the runoff in December when turnout was abysmal was definitely one case where RCV is almost certainly is better. Primaries with runoffs are another. I also think adding RCV to a top-two primary system would be desirable if one wants to have a top-two primary system, for the reason you point out.
>
> However, I think the case is less clear for other systems -- for example, when local jurisdictions have nonpartisan primaries in June and runoff elections on-cycle in November. In this scenario, the winner of the November run-off may end up with more votes than would be the case under an alternative system with no June primary and just an RCV election in November with considerable ballot exhaustion. (Whether the two candidates that make it to the final RCV redistribution round are ?better? or different than the candidates who make it to the November runoff is an empirical question.)
>
> I?m particularly skeptical of adding RCV to presidential general elections (an argument Ned Foley makes in the paper I linked to earlier), given how this would change the incentives for third-party and independent candidate entry; I can imagine scenarios where under RCV, a presidential candidate could win a state?s electoral votes with a smaller share of the total valid votes cast (given sufficiently high levels of exhaustion) than would be the case under the current plurality system used in most states.
>
> Vlad
>
> [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 9:26 AM
> To: Kogan, Vladimir
> Cc: Rick Hasen; Election Law Listserv
> Subject: Re: [EL] RCV in San Francisco
>
> Vlad,
>
> I find your "broken record" repetition on this  topic overly selective. I'll make three points that include a correction and what I trust are several useful numbers
>
> *  You suggested last week that FairVote has given up on the goal of representative outcomes -- that is, fair representation of both those in the majority and the minority. That's not true. We just accept the realities of imperfection. You set up ranked choice voting in contrast to a theoretical model of majoritarian perfection that our current systems don't remotely achieve.  Note, however, one could achieve your goal if we followed Australia's model of mandating voting and mandating rankings. Every RCV winner in Australia's House elections must earn a majority of votes from registered voters who didn't want to risk being fined and who cast a valid ballot.
>
> * But we don't mandate voting in the USA and that's not FairVote's fight. Americans don't include the huge majorities of eligible and registered voters who don't vote in our primaries  (and most of our other elections)  in the "denominator" when we report percentages for winners. We don't report undervotes when reporting winning majorities. If we did, we'd have lots of low single digit "winners." And to be clear, the primary runoff elections that you seem to give a free pass make it WORSE on average, not better. We're now just over halfway through the primary season, and there have been 23 primary runoff elections. Notably
>
> -- The median runoff primary winner earned LESS than their vote total in the first round. This obviously can never happen with ranked choice voting
>
> --- The 23 winners all earned Vlad-defined "majorities" in the runoff, but all but nine of them earned less than a third of the first round primary vote. Only three surpassed the 46.2% earned by London Breed in San Francisco despite the ballot that that limits rankings to three. (Vlad is using the wrong denominator in San Francisco, as he counts first round undervotes that no one uses when determining majorities in elections that might go to runoffs.)
>
> -- Of those three relatively strong runoff showings, only two had majorities of the 1st round: one got 50.6% of the 1st round and the other 55.4%
>
> -- In addition the runoff candidates might not be the most representative candidates. The top two finishers in runoffs can include candidates who get to the runoff only due to split votes. We've in fact had important runoffs recently under "Top Two primary" rules where no candidates from the party with the most primary votes made the runoff - that happened in 2016 in the Washington State treasurer race (affecting Democrats) and a Georgia state senate special election (affecting Republicans.) RCV is far more reliable to have the strongest two candidates make the final round -- not with 100% perfection, but clearly an improvement over runoffs without an RCV ballot.
>
> --- Of course, most of our primaries this year have been held with plurality rules. 10 winners of US House and US Senate primaries earned less than 30%, and another 16 won less than 40%. Two (WV-3 and PA-13) Republican primaries were won with less than 24% in heavily GOP district that Trump won by more than 50%. Interesting to think about from a view of "majority rule."
>
> * So let's look at RCV, which absolutely outperforms plurality and runoff elections -- it's not even close. Maine used RCV for the 1st time, with very limited state-financed voter education.  Democrats had more valid votes for governor in a primary than ever before in state history. Two primaries requiring instant runoffs - the governor's race and the 2nd congressional district. The impact of RCV were:
>
> - Governor:  Janet Mills went 33.09% in the first round to 50.2% of the first round vote total (and 54.1% of active votes in final round).
>
> - CD-2: Jared Golden went 46.4% of the first round from an instant runoff found of 54.3% of the first round vote total - that is, a higher winning percentage than all but one of the 23 congressional primary runoff winners this year using the same measure.
>
> - But that's not all. These candidates were also seeking support from backers of their final round opponent in a very real, meaningful way that they knew might help them win in the campaign. London Breed was ranked 2nd or 3rd by nearly half of her final round opponent's backers, giving her a top three ranking from 63% of San Francisco voters In the governor's race in Maine, Janet Mills was the top 2nd choice of backers of her final round opponent Adam Cote, and 47% of his supporters ranked her 2nd or 3rd. In other words, if you add the votes she had in the final round with Cote votes ranking here highly she had the active backing of well over 70% of Democrats. That's an impressive improvement from having only 33% of 1st choices , and a nice reflection of the value of  Mills "seeking consensus" in her RCV campaign.
>
> So Vlad, please excuse me if I don't see your argument as a reason not to improve our elections with ranked choice voting
>
> Thanks for reading,
> Rob
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180630/f0a65629/attachment-0001.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/f0a65629/attachment-0001.png>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2018 10:24:05 -0400
> From: Rob Richie <rr at fairvote.org>
> To: "Kogan, Vladimir" <kogan.18 at osu.edu>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] RCV in San Francisco
> Message-ID:
>    <CAM2RZHao1A80GjghGv-PaJ+-=ruwHdwknKVhW4ZFjRMrFiVDpQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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
>
>
>
>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Kogan, Vladimir <kogan.18 at osu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Rob,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for correcting my calculation! I would stop raising this point
>> repeatedly if RCV proponents stopped continuing to claim that ?the goal of
>> any runoff system is to ensure that the winner has a majority (50% + 1) of
>> the vote and is the candidate preferred by the most voters. [Jurisdiction?s
>> name] ?instant runoff? elections fulfill both goals.? When you say Fair
>> Vote accepts the realities of imperfection, that sounds like you agree that
>> RCV does not necessarily fulfill either goal. It would be great if
>> advocates stopped making this argument.
>>
>>
>>
>> I completely agree with you that RCV can be an improvement in many cases.
>> San Francisco?s previous system of holding the runoff in December when
>> turnout was abysmal was definitely one case where RCV is almost certainly
>> is better. Primaries with runoffs are another. I also think adding RCV to a
>> top-two primary system would be desirable if one wants to have a top-two
>> primary system, for the reason you point out.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, I think the case is less clear for other systems -- for example,
>> when local jurisdictions have nonpartisan primaries in June and runoff
>> elections on-cycle in November. In this scenario, the winner of the
>> November run-off may end up with more votes than would be the case under an
>> alternative system with no June primary and just an RCV election in
>> November with considerable ballot exhaustion. (Whether the two candidates
>> that make it to the final RCV redistribution round are ?better? or
>> different than the candidates who make it to the November runoff is an
>> empirical question.)
>>
>>
>>
>> I?m particularly skeptical of adding RCV to presidential general elections
>> (an argument Ned Foley makes in the paper I linked to earlier), given how
>> this would change the incentives for third-party and independent candidate
>> entry; I can imagine scenarios where under RCV, a presidential candidate
>> could win a state?s electoral votes with a smaller share of the total valid
>> votes cast (given sufficiently high levels of exhaustion) than would be the
>> case under the current plurality system used in most states.
>>
>>
>>
>> Vlad
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: The Ohio State University]
>> *Vladimir Kogan*, Associate Professor
>> *Department of Political Science*
>>
>> 2004 Derby Hall | 154 N. Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=154+N.+Oval+Mall,+Columbus,+OH+43210&entry=gmail&source=g>
>> -1373
>> 510/415-4074 Mobile
>>
>> 614/292-9498 Office
>>
>> 614/292-1146 Fax
>>
>> http://u.osu.edu/kogan.18/
>> kogan.18 at osu.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Rob Richie [mailto:rr at fairvote.org]
>> *Sent:* Saturday, June 30, 2018 9:26 AM
>> *To:* Kogan, Vladimir
>> *Cc:* Rick Hasen; Election Law Listserv
>> *Subject:* Re: [EL] RCV in San Francisco
>>
>>
>>
>> Vlad,
>>
>>
>>
>> I find your "broken record" repetition on this  topic overly selective.
>> I'll make three points that include a correction and what I trust are
>> several useful numbers
>>
>>
>>
>> *  You suggested last week that FairVote has given up on the goal of
>> representative outcomes -- that is, fair representation of both those in
>> the majority and the minority. That's not true. We just accept the
>> realities of imperfection. You set up ranked choice voting in contrast to a
>> theoretical model of majoritarian perfection that our current systems don't
>> remotely achieve.  Note, however, one could achieve your goal if we
>> followed Australia's model of mandating voting and mandating rankings.
>> Every RCV winner in Australia's House elections must earn a majority of
>> votes from registered voters who didn't want to risk being fined and who
>> cast a valid ballot.
>>
>>
>>
>> * But we don't mandate voting in the USA and that's not FairVote's fight.
>> Americans don't include the huge majorities of eligible and registered
>> voters who don't vote in our primaries  (and most of our other elections)
>> in the "denominator" when we report percentages for winners. We don't
>> report undervotes when reporting winning majorities. If we did, we'd have
>> lots of low single digit "winners." And to be clear, the primary runoff
>> elections that you seem to give a free pass make it WORSE on average, not
>> better. We're now just over halfway through the primary season, and there
>> have been 23 primary runoff elections. Notably
>>
>>
>>
>> -- The median runoff primary winner earned LESS than their vote total in
>> the first round. This obviously can never happen with ranked choice voting
>>
>>
>>
>> --- The 23 winners all earned Vlad-defined "majorities" in the runoff, but
>> all but nine of them earned less than a third of the first round primary
>> vote. Only three surpassed the 46.2% earned by London Breed in San
>> Francisco despite the ballot that that limits rankings to three. (Vlad is
>> using the wrong denominator in San Francisco, as he counts first round
>> undervotes that no one uses when determining majorities in elections that
>> might go to runoffs.)
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Of those three relatively strong runoff showings, only two had
>> majorities of the 1st round: one got 50.6% of the 1st round and the other
>> 55.4%
>>
>>
>>
>> -- In addition the runoff candidates might not be the most representative
>> candidates. The top two finishers in runoffs can include candidates who get
>> to the runoff only due to split votes. We've in fact had important runoffs
>> recently under "Top Two primary" rules where no candidates from the party
>> with the most primary votes made the runoff - that happened in 2016 in the
>> Washington State treasurer race (affecting Democrats) and a Georgia state
>> senate special election (affecting Republicans.) RCV is far more reliable
>> to have the strongest two candidates make the final round -- not with 100%
>> perfection, but clearly an improvement over runoffs without an RCV ballot.
>>
>>
>>
>> --- Of course, most of our primaries this year have been held with
>> plurality rules. 10 winners of US House and US Senate primaries earned less
>> than 30%, and another 16 won less than 40%. Two (WV-3 and PA-13)
>> Republican primaries were won with less than 24% in heavily GOP district
>> that Trump won by more than 50%. Interesting to think about from a view of
>> "majority rule."
>>
>>
>>
>> * So let's look at RCV, which absolutely outperforms plurality and runoff
>> elections -- it's not even close. Maine used RCV for the 1st time, with
>> very limited state-financed voter education.  Democrats had more valid
>> votes for governor in a primary than ever before in state history. Two
>> primaries requiring instant runoffs - the governor's race and the 2nd
>> congressional district. The impact of RCV were:
>>
>>
>>
>> - Governor:  Janet Mills went 33.09% in the first round to 50.2% of the
>> first round vote total (and 54.1% of active votes in final round).
>>
>>
>>
>> - CD-2: Jared Golden went 46.4% of the first round from an instant runoff
>> found of 54.3% of the first round vote total - that is, a higher winning
>> percentage than all but one of the 23 congressional primary runoff winners
>> this year using the same measure.
>>
>>
>>
>> - But that's not all. These candidates were also seeking support from
>> backers of their final round opponent in a very real, meaningful way that
>> they knew might help them win in the campaign. London Breed was ranked 2nd
>> or 3rd by nearly half of her final round opponent's backers, giving her a
>> top three ranking from 63% of San Francisco voters In the governor's race
>> in Maine, Janet Mills was the top 2nd choice of backers of her final round
>> opponent Adam Cote, and 47% of his supporters ranked her 2nd or 3rd. In
>> other words, if you add the votes she had in the final round with Cote
>> votes ranking here highly she had the active backing of well over 70% of
>> Democrats. That's an impressive improvement from having only 33% of 1st
>> choices , and a nice reflection of the value of  Mills "seeking consensus"
>> in her RCV campaign.
>>
>>
>>
>> So Vlad, please excuse me if I don't see your argument as a reason not to
>> improve our elections with ranked choice voting
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for reading,
>>
>> Rob
>
>
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Rob Richie
> President and CEO, FairVote
> 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 240
> Takoma Park, MD 20912
> rr at fairvote.org  (301) 270-4616  http://www.fairvote.org
> *FairVote Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/FairVoteReform>*   *FairVote
> Twitter <https://twitter.com/fairvote>*   My Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/rob_richie>
>
> Thank you for considering a *donation
> <http://www.fairvote.org/donate>. Enjoy our video on ranked choice voting
> <https://youtu.be/CIz_nzP-W_c>!*
> (Note: Our Combined Federal Campaign number is 10132.)
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180630/81889d93/attachment-0001.html>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 3605 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180630/81889d93/attachment-0001.png>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:41:36 +0000
> From: "Kogan, Vladimir" <kogan.18 at osu.edu>
> To: Rob Richie <rr at fairvote.org>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] RCV in San Francisco
> Message-ID:
>    <DDC97B3393E2AB4C85D66A2817A2C348CA528574 at CIO-TNC-D2MBX06.osuad.osu.edu>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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-0001.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-0001.png>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:53:49 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Richard Winger <richardwinger at yahoo.com>
> To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: [EL] 4 or 5 states may elect statewide independent candidates
>    this year, a record
> Message-ID: <312927052.807466.1530370429464 at mail.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> http://ballot-access.org/2018/06/30/statewide-independent-candidates-in-five-states-could-conceivably-win-in-november-2018/?Richard Winger 415-922-9779 PO Box 470296, San Francisco Ca 94147
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180630/48d1618b/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2018 11:11:51 -0400
> From: Rob Richie <rr at fairvote.org>
> To: "Kogan, Vladimir" <kogan.18 at osu.edu>
> Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> Subject: Re: [EL] RCV in San Francisco
> Message-ID:
>    <CAM2RZHYik4MkX6zr8sGsUpNnGfA1JRBaaBSPoJn_q0cGw-s1NQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Look forward to checking out that data on turnout disparities.
>
> We found stark differences in California, say. (And its even bigger in a
> cities with odd year elections that have a winnowing round before November
> - Minneapolis was good example.(  For California this year see
>
> http://www.politicaldata.com/absentee-vote-tracker/
>
> Example of a stat: California registered voters under 35 received 24% of
> mailed absentee ballots & registered voters over 64 received 26% of mailed
> ballots. Very close to the same number. But those older voters on June 5th
> represented half of all returned ballots & younger ones only 9% of returned
> ballots.
>
>
>
>> On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 10:41 AM, Kogan, Vladimir <kogan.18 at osu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: The Ohio State University]
>> *Vladimir Kogan*, Associate Professor
>> *Department of Political Science*
>>
>> 2004 Derby Hall | 154 N. Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210
>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=154+N.+Oval+Mall,+Columbus,+OH+43210&entry=gmail&source=g>
>> -1373
>> 510/415-4074 Mobile
>>
>> 614/292-9498 Office
>>
>> 614/292-1146 Fax
>>
>> http://u.osu.edu/kogan.18/
>> 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
>
>
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Rob Richie
> President and CEO, FairVote
> 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 240
> Takoma Park, MD 20912
> rr at fairvote.org  (301) 270-4616  http://www.fairvote.org
> *FairVote Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/FairVoteReform>*   *FairVote
> Twitter <https://twitter.com/fairvote>*   My Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/rob_richie>
>
> Thank you for considering a *donation
> <http://www.fairvote.org/donate>. Enjoy our video on ranked choice voting
> <https://youtu.be/CIz_nzP-W_c>!*
> (Note: Our Combined Federal Campaign number is 10132.)
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180630/410d46a3/attachment-0001.html>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 3605 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180630/410d46a3/attachment-0001.png>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Law-election Digest, Vol 86, Issue 26
> ********************************************

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180701/a8b856a5/attachment.html>