4,193
edits
(Big reformatting, trying not to break ''too'' many links. Still needs a little copyediting though) |
(A little more copyediting before the #RBJ interview section. I should probably break that out into a different page) |
||
Line 4:
:''hashtag Burlington2009''
This page discusses the reason why I think that Burlington eletion was a mess in 2009.
An outline for this page:
* [[Monotonicity]] - There are many people that obsess about the monotonicity criterion failure that happened in ▼
* [[Condorcet criterion]] - this was the indisputable failure of [[instant-runoff voting]] in that election▼
*First, I'll bring up a couple of electoral criteria:
▲*
▲*
*Then,
**[[#Diagram]] - my diagram that I made shortly after the election
* Then finally there's the interview:
*
▲* [[#Interview with RBJ in 2020]] - I'm planning to iteratively publish an email interview with Robert Bristow-Johnson on this page. Robert is an electoral reform activist, and has been a longtime member of the [[Election-methods mailing list]] ("[[EM list]]"). Robert's first message in October 2009 ([http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com//2009-October/122858.html a response to Michael Rouse's "new method/request for voting paradoxes" thread]), and he's been continuously active since then. In fact, recently, he engaged in a conversation with [http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2020-April/thread.html#2523 a conversation with Kristofer Munsterhjelm about "Linear summability"] , which is what inspired me to start this interview with Robert Bristow-Johnson in the [[#Interview]] section of this page.
▲== Monotonicity ==
:''main article: [[Monotonicity]]''
There are many people that obsess about the monotonicity criterion failure that happened in Burlington. It's a red herring, though. The real problem was with the failure of the [[#Condorcet criterion]]
==
:''main article: [[Condorcet criterion]]''
The Condorcet criterion is not ''that'' hard to explain. In short, if a simple majority of voters prefer candidate A over candidate B (and express that preference on their ballots), then candidate B should not be elected.
==
{{Hashtag|hashtag=SVGbyRobLaBurlington2009}}
Back when the election first happened, many of us on [[EM-list]] came to realize that what we feared would happen with [[IRV|IRV/RCV]] actually happened. We ''thought'' that this would be our "I told you so moment". I put a lot of work into [[2009 Burlington mayoral election#Infographic|an infographic about the election]], for which you can find the SVG here: [[:File:Burlington2009election-infosheet.svg|File:Burlington2009election-infosheet.svg]]
We thought it was going to be a learning moment, but alas, it wasn't meant to be. But it serve as a good recruitment tool for [[Electorama.com]], and led to RBJ joining the mailing list. <div id="Interview"><span id="RBJ">The following section is an interview about with RBJ about the Burlington election in 2009.</span></div>
▲== Interview with RBJ in 2020 ==
:''email interview with Robert Bristow-Johnson ("RBJ"), started in May 2020 and still happening...''
Line 39 ⟶ 44:
''A quick Google search doesn’t turn up a ton on Robert Bristow-Johnson (or RBJ, as he is often abbreviated). He worked at Eventide, Fostex, Young Chang (Kurzweil), and Wave Mechanics. RBJ has a few AES papers as well, all of which are worth reading, covering topics ranging from PSOLA pitch shifting (made famous by AutoTune) to filter design to interpolation for oversampling.''</blockquote>Robert is a longtime citizen of Burlington, and has long been troubled by the persistent drive toward [[Instant-runoff voting|Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV)]] in Burlington. In 2014, he was invited to write [https://vtdigger.org/2014/11/11/robert-bristow-johnson-ways/ "Having it Both Ways"] for the local [https://vtdigger.org/about-vtdigger-2/ "VTDigger" publication from ''The Vermont Journalism Trust''], where he pointed out a strategic mistake (or two, or maybe more) that the Republicans in Vermont made. I'm grateful for the opportunity to interview Robert via email<ref>I also had the opportunity to have a "30 minute" conversation with Robert that became an enjoyable two hours for both of us, but that part was off-the-record.</ref>:
=== Question #1: introduction
'''Q: ([[User:RobLa]]) - It's my understanding that you were living in Burlington back in 2009, when this election took place. Is that correct? If so, can you tell me what it was like?'''
Line 59 ⟶ 64:
When I found out (from the news) that Andy was the pairwise champion, I obtained the same ballot data myself from the city clerk's office and wrote my own computer program to scan the ballot rankings and tally the election using Condorcet rules and confirmed the results although my numerical results are slightly different than either Warren Smith's or Brian Olson's numerical results. But the qualitative results, who beats whom, are exactly the same. The ballots I counted were exactly consistent with those counted in the IRV tally so my subtotals agree exactly with the official round-by-round tallies of the IRV election.
===
'''Q: ([[User:RobLa]]) - That's interesting! How did it occur to you to try tabulating the pairwise results? How well did you understand the Condorcet methods prior to the 2009 election? '''
'''A: (Robert) ''' Well, it was because the local news reported, within a week or two, that in some sense Andy really won the election. How was that? And I knew that the only sense it could be was that Andy was the '''Condorcet winner''' (CW) and I knew that if the CW gets to the IRV final round, the CW will beat anyone there and win the IRV election. I knew who was, locally in Burlington, responsible for introducing IRV to Burlington, ''Terry Bouricius'', who is, I believe, a member of the EM Mailing List because it was he that suggested that I join it. There were dueling commentaries in the local papers between Terry and UVM Prof. Anthony Gierzynski about whether something actually screwed up in the IRV election. It wasn't until I actually got on the EM list that I figured out who Warren Smith is and that it was Warren who was in command of the technical details and was actually the fact source behind Prof. Gierzynski. I didn't see Warren's page at https://www.rangevoting.org/Burlington.html until later but somehow found out that there was raw ballot data available from the Burlington City Clerk voting website burlingtonvotes.org .
===
'''Q: ([[User:RobLa]]) - So you knew about Condorcet winners before the 2009 election? How well did you understand electoral methods before 2009?'''
'''A: (Robert)''' - Before 2009, I remember reading a good article in Scientific American by Partha Dasgupta and Nobel laureate Eric Maskin ( https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ranking-candidates-more-accurate/ ) where the authors dub Condorcet rank-order voting as "True Majority Rule". I realized that the IRV rules were not the same as the naive Condorcet rules, but I could tell that if the CW gets into the IRV final round, the Condorcet Winner (CW) will win IRV. So I wasn't worried. In fact, later, the paper ''Risk-limiting Audits for Nonplurality Elections'' by Sawarte et. al. ( https://hovav.net/ucsd/dist/irv.pdf ) has shown, in Table 1, results that all of these other IRV elections, including Burlington 2006, ended up electing the CW. Only Burlington 2009 failed to elect the CW and my feeling about that is exactly the same as regarding the Electoral College in the U.S. The Electoral College does a pretty good job of electing the popular vote winner, except when it doesn't. And when it fails to elect the popular vote winner, the elected President '''never''' has voter legitimacy and is handicapped in their role in office. Similarly, when IRV fails to elect the CW, the elected IRV winner will '''never''' carry the voter legitimacy that the CW would simply because more of us voted for the CW.
===
'''Q: ([[User:RobLa]]) - With your math background and having read about Condorcet, you had a bit of head start on your fellow Burlington citizens when it comes to understanding the difference between a Condorcet winner and an IRV winner. When voters repealed IRV in 2010, do you feel like they were doing it because they understood that distinction, or was the 2010 repeal of IRV more of a referendum on Bob Kiss's performance in office?'''
Line 75 ⟶ 80:
A: (Robert) It is true that there was a lot of confusion and disillusionment regarding the 2009 IRV result. Like the three parties, there were at least three different positions regarding IRV.
*
*
* Democrats were divided on IRV. Many of us really expected the Democrat candidate to win because he has broad (although not as deep) support. He was overwelmingly the second choice of voters who voted for someone else as their first choice. His loss on March 3, 2009, was a bitter surprise.
Line 83 ⟶ 88:
So, ironically, the choice we had in 2010, was between Dumb and Dumber, which is the same problem as with the two-party system. Dumb was IRV and Dumber was FPTP, and in 2010, Dumber won and Burlington Vermont lost its ranked-choice voting by about a 4% margin. I was a voice in the wilderness calling for a third way of looking at it, but the two sides were so polarized and so unwilling to separate themselves from their own talking points, that fewer voters understood, despite some newspaper analysis that did make clear that the Democrat candidate would have beaten either the GOP or the Prog in the IRV final round, had he been '''in''' the final round. Some responses to that point was simply "so what?". They didn't understand that this clearly spells out the spoiler scenario.
===
'''Q: ([[User:RobLa]]) - You said in your previous answer that you opposed the 2010 repeal initiative, and that you preferred to "''reform ranked-choice voting rather than get rid of it''". What reform would you propose to ranked-choice voting?'''
==
<references />
|