Thanks, Graeme. This claim that instant runoff (IRO) (aka Alternative
Vote/ majority-preferential voting) "violates one person, one vote" is
puzzling. Does the League of Women Voters also claim that the two-poll
runoffs more commonly used in the Lower 48 are unconstitutional? (Hard to
maintain, if so, given that the US Constn lays down a form of runoff
election for the President and VP by the Electoral College and Congress).
Does the LWV argue that a California voter casting, in effect, 40-plus
votes to elect 40-plus Presidential Electors "violates one person, one
vote"? If no to either or both these questions, then how exactly does the
LWV interpret "one person, one vote"?
This shows the danger of thinking in slogans -- of treating a simplistic
phrase or cliche as a legal litmus test rather than an abbreviation for
purposes of political debate. A more nuanced and accurate view of the body
US constl jurisprudence that is summed up by this convenient but limited
slogan would be something like ...
"Deliberate legal inequality, or avoidable de factor inequality,
among voters within the same State is unconstl"
-- with the proviso that
"A State is entitled to divide itself into electoral districts
[not exceeding the number of seats, I guess -- hence no more unit rule for
gubernatorial elections], notwithstanding that this inherently creates some
de facto inequality among voters."
The absolute number of votes per se is irrelevant. What matters is that
votes must be distributed and weighted equally. Judged this way, it is
plain that IRO does not over- or under-weight the voting power of any
identifiable group. If 100 people vote using IRO, there are 100 valid votes
in play at the first count and still 100 at the end (barring any votes that
exhaust due to running out of further preferences).
Perhaps it is not fully appreciated by critics that a minor-party
supporter's second or third-choice vote is
_only_ counted when, and
because, her first-choice candidate can't win and so is eliminated. IRO is
a single-seat version of the system called "SINGLE Transferable Vote".
Of course, one might still argue that IRO is
_politically_ undesirable.
Frequent Australian objections are that it encourages parties to make
unprincipled deals "swapping preferences" with each other, and that a
candidate can win with a very low first-preference vote that isn't even a
plurality. One egregious example saw a candidate with about 16% of
first-choice votes defeat, after re-allocation of preferences, a rival with
about 48%! Political scientists can construct plausible scenarioes where
the result is entirely changed if a small shift of votes changes the order
in which the lowest candidates are eliminated. But these cases are very
rare. And they're very different from making out that IRO is some kind of
latter-day plural voting system.
Anyway, I supose the voters have spoken and the horse has bolted. But
better luck next time if Alaska votes again on IRO. Hopefully this
particular canard will be deservedly dropped.
At 09:58 27-08-02 +1000, Graeme Orr wrote:
The 'alternative' or 'instant run off' vote - better known as
'preferential voting' in these parts - has been well-established in
Australia for nigh on a century. Its constitutionality has never really
been doubted, as a litigant in person found out in our highest court
recently:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/cases/cth/high%5fct/1999/41.html?query=%22preferential+voting%22
Yes, preferential voting deals minor parties into the equation in
important ways (and gives voters subtler and fairer choices, which some
believe distort the process of choosing). It leads to horse-trading over
recommendation of preferences and deals between sympatico parties - eg
over the manning of polling booths to hand out 'how-to-vote' (HTV) cards,
which recommend preference flows, and in worst cases, 'sham' HTVs
masquerading as rival party's preference recommendations.
It probably won't lead to any more minor parties being elected, except in
districts where they already have such concentrated strength that they
could currently run second: in those cases they may succeed on 2nd
preferences of the least favoured major party supporters who otherwise
might not feel able to give them a 'tactical' 1st preference. Whether
pref voting increases 'negative' voting as opposed to first pas the post
is a moot point. My colleague Tom Round could give a deeper account for
the merits (or lack of them) of preferential voting in 3rd party
representation.
Graeme Orr
Lecturer, Law
Griffith University
Brisbane 4111
Australia
"Dan Johnson-Weinberger" <proportionalrepresentation@msn.com>
Sent by: owner-election-law_gl@majordomo.lls.edu
26/08/2002 12:11 PM MST
Please respond to "Dan Johnson-Weinberger"
To: <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
cc:
bcc:
Subject: Re: Alaska Voters to Consider Adding Instant Runoffs to Elections
Or as we say in the campaign, the lies that the League of Women Voters is
spreading. . .
;-)
For the constitutionality of instant runoff voting, please see the
campaign's rebuttal statement:
http://www.alaskanforvotersrights.com/rebuttal.htm
Dan Johnson-Weinberger
National Field Director
Center for Voting and Democracy
Note the interesting quote from the League of Women Voters
president claiming that IRV appears to violate one person,
one vote.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-instant25aug25.story
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Tom Round
BA (Hons), LL.B (UQ), PhD (GU)
Research Fellow, Key Centre for Ethics,
Law, Justice and Governance (KCELJAG)
& Subject Convenor, 7021KEL ("Ethical and
Legal Regulation of Organisations")
Room 1.10, Macrossan Building, Nathan Campus
Griffith University, Queensland (Australia) 4111
Ph: (061 or 07) 3875 3817
Mbl: 0438 167 304
Fax: (061 or 07) 3875 6634
E-mail:
T.Round@mailbox.gu.edu.au
Web:
http://www.gu.edu.au/centre/kceljag/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------