Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

IRV and NOTA?

Expand Messages
  • arnold.trembley@worldnet.att.net
    Another popular suggestion for voting reform is the NOTA option (None Of The Above). I suppose it could be implemented in two different ways. If a person
    Message 1 of 6 , Dec 18, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Another popular suggestion for voting reform is the NOTA option (None
      Of The Above). I suppose it could be implemented in two different
      ways. If a person votes NOTA in a particular race, it could be an
      explicit undervote, indicating a desire to not vote for any candidate
      in that race. Alternatively, if NOTA wins a majority, all candidates
      are discarded and a new election must be held with a completely
      different slate of candidates (or the office must be left vacant).

      How would NOTA be integrated with Instant Runoff Voting?
    • Devin M. Scherubel
      Certainly a lot of races deserve NOTA! But I think it s a much harder sell than IRV, because of the need for a whole new election rather than the instant in
      Message 2 of 6 , Dec 18, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Certainly a lot of races deserve NOTA! But I think it's a much harder
        sell than IRV, because of the need for a whole new election rather
        than the "instant" in IRV. For my money (or organizing time, actually
        a much more valuable commodity,) I would choose to keep IRV simple
        and to the point and push that.

        -- devin.

        >Another popular suggestion for voting reform is the NOTA option (None
        >Of The Above). I suppose it could be implemented in two different
        >ways. If a person votes NOTA in a particular race, it could be an
        >explicit undervote, indicating a desire to not vote for any candidate
        >in that race. Alternatively, if NOTA wins a majority, all candidates
        >are discarded and a new election must be held with a completely
        >different slate of candidates (or the office must be left vacant).
        >
        >How would NOTA be integrated with Instant Runoff Voting?
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        >InstantRunoffMO-unsubscribe@egroups.com

        Devin M. Scherubel
        Network Support Coordinator, Heartwood
        PO Box 7653, Columbia, MO 65205
        phone: (573) 999-5790
        fax: (573) 443-5225
        devin@...
        http://www.heartwood.org
      • Boz (James Bosworth)
        The other problem I can see is that you must sell the two together or else you ll have NOTA playing the spoiler in some elections. I think setting down IRV
        Message 3 of 6 , Dec 18, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          The other problem I can see is that you must sell the two together or else
          you'll have NOTA playing the spoiler in some elections. I think setting
          down IRV first will give us room to make modifications later. BTW: If you
          are pushing NOTA the best example you will find is the referendum in Puerto
          Rico back in 1998 (I think) where they chose NOTA above statehood and
          independence.

          -boz
        • arnold.trembley@worldnet.att.net
          ... or else ... setting ... If you ... Puerto ... and ... I don t have a big emotional investment in IRV, but I agree it would be harder to sell both together
          Message 4 of 6 , Dec 18, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In InstantRunoffMO@egroups.com, "Boz (James Bosworth)"
            <jaboswor@a...> wrote:
            > The other problem I can see is that you must sell the two together
            or else
            > you'll have NOTA playing the spoiler in some elections. I think
            setting
            > down IRV first will give us room to make modifications later. BTW:
            If you
            > are pushing NOTA the best example you will find is the referendum in
            Puerto
            > Rico back in 1998 (I think) where they chose NOTA above statehood
            and
            > independence.
            >
            > -boz

            I don't have a big emotional investment in IRV, but I agree it would
            be harder to sell both together than piecemeal.

            I think it might be possible to sell a version of NOTA that does not
            call for leaving the office vacant or requiring a new set of
            candidates. Perhaps part of the problem in Florida was that some
            voters did not want to vote for any presidential candidate. I was
            concerned about this because the new voting technology may not allow a
            voter to vote for no candidate, depending on how the editing logic is
            programmed.

            And in the example you cite from Puerto Rico, if the only options on
            the ballot were statehood and independence, and many voters refused
            both options, then they were voting to retain their commonwealth
            status the only way they knew how.
          • Boz (James Bosworth)
            There were actually five choices on that ballot: statehood, remain a commonwealth, quasi-independence , full independence, and none of the above. In the end,
            Message 5 of 6 , Dec 18, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              There were actually five choices on that ballot: statehood, remain a
              commonwealth, "quasi-independence", full independence, and none of the
              above. In the end, NOTA won with 50.2% of the vote, and statehood came in
              second with 46.5%. Some people, including the governor, claimed that NOTA
              was a protest vote that had no legitimacy, and that statehood had won among
              the actual choices by an huge margin.

              What really happened was the oppostion party (PDP) claimed that the
              referendum was worded unfairly towards statehood, and launched a successful
              campaign to have anyone opposing statehood fill in NOTA.

              Bringing this back to Missouri. I think the main argument against NOTA,
              even with IRV, is that it is difficult to convince people that they can have
              NOTA ranked. Can someone rank they want none of the above as a first
              choice, and then a candidate as a second choice? Can they rank a candidate
              first, and then as a second choice say they want none of the candidates?
              Both of these scenarios lead to contradictions in people's votes. I think I
              could make a good argument that it violates the "one person, one vote" rule.

              It was a good idea to bring it up, but I think it should be set aside for
              now. It will take enough political capital to get any reform such as IRV
              passed.

              -boz
            • dlkunkee@primary.net
              It seems to me that the None Of The Above issue would seem much less important under IRV, in the case of an election among candidates, because IRV would
              Message 6 of 6 , Jan 14, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                It seems to me that the "None Of The Above" issue would seem much less
                important under IRV, in the case of an election among candidates,
                because IRV would encourage more candidates to run by giving them a
                chance. I think NOTA gets support because the plurality winner take all
                system tends to discourage third party candidates since many supporters
                will vote for one of the leaders instead.

                Duane
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.