[EL] RCV and eggheads
D. A. Holtzman
d at LAvoteFIRE.org
Sat Jun 30 21:16:02 PDT 2018
Some groups of people have eggshell skulls and literacy problems, you
say, and ask,
"Why make voting more complicated" with ranked-choice?
Perhaps because the obvious alternative would be to make voting more
frequent!
You know, doing the simple "vote for one" thing over and over, say
weekly, eliminating one candidate at a time (again, say weekly) until a
candidate gets a majority of votes cast.
It would make a great TV series. (Let's pitch it! Who'll sponsor?)
- dah
On 6/30/2018 7:27 PM, George Korbel wrote:
> To me the most significant of the White/Zimmer/senate factors are the
> socio economic educational differential in concert with racially
> polarized voting. That egg shell skull problem is at the heart of the
> analysis.
> When you make it more difficult to register, to remain registered, to
> obtain an Id or to cast a ballot The courts utilize the
> White/Zimmer/Senate factors. The problem dealing with illiteracy is an
> electoral mountain facing attempts at increasing or equalizing
> minority voting. Why make voting more complicated
>
> Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Steven John Mulroy (smulroy) <smulroy at memphis.edu>
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 30, 2018 8:29:59 PM
> *To:* George Korbel
> *Cc:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Law-election Digest, Vol 86, Issue 26
> But is there actual data to back up that claim? Many worry about the
> supposedly confusing effect of RCV, but yet real world experience
> shows that voters, including minority voters, can figure it out fine.
>
> Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse typos.
>
> On Jun 30, 2018, at 8:26 PM, George Korbel <korbellaw at hotmail.com
> <mailto:korbellaw at hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>> on behalf of
>> Steven John Mulroy (smulroy) <smulroy at memphis.edu
>> <mailto:smulroy at memphis.edu>>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, June 30, 2018 5:14:50 PM
>> *To:* law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto:law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu>"
>> <law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu
>> <mailto:law-election-request at department-lists.uci.edu>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Send Law-election mailing list submissions to
>> > law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:kogan.18 at osu.edu>>
>> > To: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu <mailto:rhasen at law.uci.edu>>,
>> Election Law Listserv
>> > <law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
>> > Subject: [EL] RCV in San Francisco
>> > Message-ID:
>> >
>> <DDC97B3393E2AB4C85D66A2817A2C348CA527D5B at CIO-TNC-D2MBX06.osuad.osu.edu
>> <mailto: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><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 <mailto:Tom at tomcares.com>>
>> > To: "Kogan, Vladimir" <kogan.18 at osu.edu <mailto:kogan.18 at osu.edu>>
>> > Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu
>> <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
>> > Subject: Re: [EL] RCV in San Francisco
>> > Message-ID:
>> >
>> <CADE9kw-PU2xd=HOHTBY=AA1xv8u3LYQ_=5T8vbuTMRKVbfSuWg at mail.gmail.com
>> <mailto: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
>> <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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> [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 <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/20180629/89dea8ea/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 <mailto:kogan.18 at osu.edu>>
>> > To: "Thomas J. Cares" <Tom at tomcares.com <mailto:Tom at tomcares.com>>
>> > Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu
>> <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
>> > Subject: Re: [EL] RCV in San Francisco
>> > Message-ID:
>> >
>> <DDC97B3393E2AB4C85D66A2817A2C348CA527E8C at CIO-TNC-D2MBX06.osuad.osu.edu
>> <mailto: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><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><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><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><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 <mailto:rr at fairvote.org>>
>> > To: "Kogan, Vladimir" <kogan.18 at osu.edu <mailto:kogan.18 at osu.edu>>
>> > Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu
>> <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
>> > Subject: Re: [EL] RCV in San Francisco
>> > Message-ID:
>> >
>> <CAM2RZHYrRp5+MabCUV6oofZfnUmfQ5EF63U3uw=Ph02Lyv5bwQ at mail.gmail.com
>> <mailto: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
>> <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
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> [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 <mailto: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 <mailto:kogan.18 at osu.edu>>
>> > To: Rob Richie <rr at fairvote.org <mailto:rr at fairvote.org>>
>> > Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu
>> <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
>> > Subject: Re: [EL] RCV in San Francisco
>> > Message-ID:
>> >
>> <DDC97B3393E2AB4C85D66A2817A2C348CA5284DA at CIO-TNC-D2MBX06.osuad.osu.edu
>> <mailto: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><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 <mailto:rr at fairvote.org>>
>> > To: "Kogan, Vladimir" <kogan.18 at osu.edu <mailto:kogan.18 at osu.edu>>
>> > Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu
>> <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
>> > Subject: Re: [EL] RCV in San Francisco
>> > Message-ID:
>> >
>> <CAM2RZHao1A80GjghGv-PaJ+-=ruwHdwknKVhW4ZFjRMrFiVDpQ at mail.gmail.com
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> > Rob Richie
>> > President and CEO, FairVote
>> > 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 240
>> > Takoma Park, MD 20912
>> > rr at fairvote.org <mailto:rr at fairvote.org> (301) 270-4616
>> http://www.fairvote.org <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 <mailto:kogan.18 at osu.edu>>
>> > To: Rob Richie <rr at fairvote.org <mailto:rr at fairvote.org>>
>> > Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu
>> <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
>> > Subject: Re: [EL] RCV in San Francisco
>> > Message-ID:
>> >
>> <DDC97B3393E2AB4C85D66A2817A2C348CA528574 at CIO-TNC-D2MBX06.osuad.osu.edu
>> <mailto: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><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
>> <mailto:richardwinger at yahoo.com>>
>> > To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:rr at fairvote.org>>
>> > To: "Kogan, Vladimir" <kogan.18 at osu.edu <mailto:kogan.18 at osu.edu>>
>> > Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu
>> <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
>> > Subject: Re: [EL] RCV in San Francisco
>> > Message-ID:
>> >
>> <CAM2RZHYik4MkX6zr8sGsUpNnGfA1JRBaaBSPoJn_q0cGw-s1NQ at mail.gmail.com
>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> > Rob Richie
>> > President and CEO, FairVote
>> > 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 240
>> > Takoma Park, MD 20912
>> > rr at fairvote.org <mailto:rr at fairvote.org> (301) 270-4616
>> http://www.fairvote.org <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
>> <mailto: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
>> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
--
--
Acceptable candidates, in the order you prefer them:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
(...)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20180630/e2a0f563/attachment.html>
View list directory