0

Home

Dividist Creed

More

Next Blog

Voting by Objective

Create Blog

How to Vote for Divided Government

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Dividist Library & Studies

Sign In

About The Dividist

DIVIDIST FEATURED VIDEO:

Antonin Scalia Ruling - Gridlock Is A Feature Not A Bug.

Ranked-choice Voting: Epic Fail in Oakland.

00:00

00:00

Clip Embed

Share This Video

Justice Antonin Scalia explains the virrtues of our divided government

with the insight, clarity and simplicity of language that made him a giant
on the Court. If you understand the Framer's intent with checks,
balances, and separation of powers, you'll understand that divided
government and gridlock is what really protects our freedoms, and
makes our system exceptional [H/T Karl].

Mayor Quan releases dove at religious conference.

Apparently it's a difficult concept for many Prog Pundits

The dove was reportedly killed shortly thereafter, struck by a wayward bullet
while flying over the Occupy Oakland encampment.

One year ago, Jean Quan was elected mayor of Oakland. She never led in any poll at any time
during the campaign. She always trailed front-runner Don Perata in every minute of the
campaign from beginning to end.
On election day, 36% percent of Oakland voters said they wanted Don Perata as their mayor.
Only 24% of Oakland voters said Jean Quan was their first choice to be mayor. In prior years,
a runoff election would have followed and voters would have chosen between Perata and
Quan in a head to head runoff election. Not this year. This was Oakland's first Ranked-choice
Voting election for Mayor. The other candidates on the ballot were eliminated and the second
and third choice votes on their ballots were added to Quan and Perata's totals. Jean Quan
became mayor. Oakland saved the cost of conducting a runoff election.

TWEET ME:
I know I said I would not tweet. I lied.

Tweets by @Dividist
(((The Dividist))) @Dividist
@rjmadrid Nothing to be done but watch the
GOP go up in flames like Waco then see what
can be salvaged from the ashes.
14h

(((The Dividist))) @Dividist

@mrjosco Here is a better idea. Just pass a
balanced budget amendment. Simpler. Same 3/4
states needed as CoS amendments. Much less
risk.
15h

Jean Quan ran a smart and innovative campaign. She asked Oakland voters for their second
place votes. Why not? She is likable and her campaign employed fun YouTube ads:

(((The Dividist))) @Dividist

@mrjosco No doubt they'd fight for their
principles, as would leftist CoS advocates.
Quesion is - Who wins? Hence risk & why it's a
bad idea
15h

"Block by Block" - Jean Quan for Ma

(((The Dividist))) Retweeted

DonaId J. Trump @realDenaldTrump

No, NO! I change. Pence just got HORRIBLE
reviews on Twitter. I choose NEWT! NEWT
GINGRICH! Nice! @realDonaldTrump
twitter.com/realdenaldtrum
16h
(((The Dividist))) Retweeted

People like to give out consolation prizes. Why not give her your second place vote? What
harm would it do?

Prashant Kishore Jha @prashantjha333

@tomfriedman Yeah, always blame the other
guy. In a divided government, both sides have to
do its part but the president has to lead.

Advocates for the ranked-choice voting system will tell you that if Quan and Perata ran in a
runoff election, we would have seen the same result. They claim this was a just a more
efficient and less costly way to arrive at that result.
Matt Gonzalez offered as good an argument as it gets for ranked-choice voting in his op-ed in
the Chronicle last week. I'll have more to say about his piece later, but this is what he says
about the Oakland election:

13 Jul

(((The Dividist))) @Dividist

@nytimes @tomfriedman is talking out of his *
whatever *. 116 yrs of history say the House is a
#GOP lock in '16.
dividist.com/2016/04/no-gop
18h

"Ranked-choice voting results should be identical to those of a traditional runoff

... Others argue that everybody's second-favorite candidate gets elected, citing
Oakland's 2010 mayoral election, which Jean Quan won. But this misses the
point. Quan won because she received more votes in a runoff than Don Perata
did. The only difference was that the essentially three-way contest (there were 10
candidates total) used ranked-choice voting, which eliminated the need to hold
another election a month later - in which fewer voters would have voted. In fact,
Quan won more votes in Oakland than any other mayoral candidate had in a
generation."

Embed

View on Twitter

WELCOME TO
THE DIVIDIST
PAPERS

Now - all of this would be moot if Quan had proven to be a popular and competent mayor.
That didn't happen. So now Oakland voters are facing the question whether they legitimately
elected an incompetent, or if they were denied the opportunity to vote for their preferred
candidate for mayor.
Let's take another look at the Matt Gonzalez case for ranked-choice voting:
"Ranked-choice voting results should be identical to those of a traditional runoff,
the only exception being that the winner is decided when turnout is highest and
big money hasn't polarized the race. This is better democracy."
Two things to note - First, he no sooner finishes claiming that ranked-choice voting yields an
identical result to a runoff, when he offers an exception. If you have "big money" and a
"polarized" race, well - he admits you might get a different result. In other words, Gonzalez is
saying we cannot trust the voters to make a decision under the those circumstances. "Big
money" and "polarized" are subjective pejoratives. Others may use terms like "commitment"
and "support" for the candidate they prefer.

The Di
49 likes

Like Page

It is Gonzalez that misses the point. The operative word in this quote is "should": "Rankedchoice voting results should be identical to those of a traditional runoff..." Sure they should.
We just don't know if they are.
Gonzalez claims that Quan's plurality of 2nd choice votes produced exactly the same result as
we would have seen in a runoff vs. Perata. The truth is that he does not know that for a fact.
No one does. It is just his opinion. My opinion is that Quan would never have beaten Perata in
a one on one runoff. No one will ever know because Oakland never had that runoff election.
The voters were denied the opportunity to make their choice clear. That is precisely the point.
If no one knows whether Quan or Perata would have won, Quan's legitimacy as an elected
mayor is open to question and confidence in our democratic process is undermined. Yes - she
won according to the ranked-choice rules, but no one knows if that truly reflected the
preference of Oakland voters between Quan and Perata.

LIKE ME:

Be the first of your friends

to like this

Divided Government
Is Better Government.
HOME

FOLLOW ME: Google

SEARCH ME: Go
ahead. I mean, it's not like
we have any 4th
amendment protections any
more.

Join this site

with Google Friend Connect

Members (27) More

Search

Featured Post

Why do Americans
vote for divided
government?
UPDATED: 04-April2016* Since the end of
WWII, including the 2014
midterms, there have been
34 federal elections in the
United States. ...

Already a member? Sign in

READ ME: Feedburner

FOLLOW ME:
Via News Feed
Posts
Comments

More astonishing is his claim that ranked-choice voting is somehow "better democracy". Step
back and think about what he is really saying here. He is asserting that having a real run-off
election, letting the voters make a simple, clear choice between two candidates, vote if they
want to, vote for the candidate they prefer, adding up the votes to yield an unambiguous
decision where the candidates with the most votes wins, is somehow a less good democracy. It
is an absurd claim on its face.
Trusting the voters to make a simple choice between the last candidates standing is not a good
enough democracy for Matt Gonzalez. According to Matt, we need this New and Improved
Ranked Choice Voting Democracy 2.0! A better democracy! Now in a convenient 16-Pack!
He goes on to argue for the qualities that make ranked-choice voting a "better democracy.":

POPULAR DIVIDIST
POSTS:
Markets,
Economy,
Gridlock and
Maria
Bartiromo
After the market close on
Monday, Maria Bartiromo
led a panel discussion on
the long and short term
implications of a GOP
victory and divid...

FOLLOW ME:
Via E-mail
Email address...

Submit

FIND ME: FEEDJIT

Live Traffic Feed
A visitor from Toronto,
Ontario
viewed "The Dividist Papers:
Ranked-choice Voting: Epic
Fail in Oakland." 6 secs ago

".. the winner is decided when turnout is highest and big money hasn't polarized
the race.. With ranked-choice voting, San Francisco has avoided 15 December
runoff elections that typically would have resulted in far lower voter turnout,
dramatically increased campaign spending from special interests and cost the
taxpayers millions to administer (an estimated $3 million this year alone). Oldfashioned door-to-door politics and coalition-building matters more than with the
old system, which gave advantages to money politics."
None of these "better democracy" arguments are supported by empirical fact. All these "better
democracy" claims can be distilled into this: Matt does not trust the voters in a runoff election
to make the right decision. He fears voters might make a wrong decision in a polarized election.
He is concerned voters might be unduly influenced by big money advertising. Matt wants"
door-to-door" and "coalition building" candidates to win. Best not to take the risk that voters
will choose the wrong kind of candidate in a real runoff. Net net - Matt believes the kind of
candidate he prefers would have a better chance getting elected under RCV. Ranked-choice
voting is a way to put his thumb on the electoral scale.
It is utter nonsense to claim that there is a "better democracy" than giving voters a choice
between two candidates, let them vote between the two candidates, and declare the one with
the most votes the winner.
There is one and only one good rationalization for Ranked-choice Voting - cost. RCV saves the
cost of a runoff election. That is certainly and unarguably true. But it is also unarguable that
ranked-choice voting is less good democracy than simply trusting voters in a real runoff.
By utilizing ranked-choice voting, Oakland saved the cost of a runoff election in 2010. They
are paying the price of incompetent leadership managing the Occupy Oakland protest now.
Oakland will be paying for the additional cost of a recall election in 2012. One protester paid
with his life. For Oakland, the cost savings of ranked-choice voting are illusory.
We have yet to learn the real cost of our ranked-choice voting experiment in San Francisco, but
in San Francisco the runoff election cost problem is easily solved. Gonzalez says a runoff
election costs the city $3M. We can save $4.6 million by eliminating public financing of the
Mayor's race. We can use that money to pay for real runoffs, trust the voters to make a clear
unambiguous choice and get truly "better democracy".
Support better democracy. Trust the voters. Kill ranked-choice voting in San Francisco before
it costs us like it cost Oakland.

Investors
Love Divided
Government
Perception is
Reality
The correlation (or not) of
divided government,
market performance,
election expectations and
investor psychology has
been a recurring them...
Back and
blogging.
I'm back
from my
seafaring
sojourn. I returned last
week, was buried by a
backlog of stuff in the nondigital world, and have yet
to dig...
San
Francisco
Values Alleged Wife
Battering
County Sheriff Edition
This mug shot is our new
Sheriff, Ross Mirkarimi. He
was elected Sheriff in the
last election and sworn in
on Monday . Friday he
was arres...
Obama
Endorses the
Bush/Cheney
Unitary
Executive.
Again and again and again.
UPDATED : 19-Feb-09 It
was the most seductive
argument to vote for
Barack Obama - We need
to elect a Democrat to
"undo the damage&q...

A visitor from Richmond,

California
viewed "The Dividist Papers:
In Praise of the Smoke Filled
Room - or - How I Learned To
Love The Idea Of A Brokered
GOP Convention" 4 mins ago
A visitor from San
Francisco, California
viewed "The Dividist Papers:
United Coalition of the Divided
- 2016 Edition" 3 hrs 16 mins
ago
A visitor from Athens,
Georgia
viewed "The Dividist Papers:
Why do Americans vote for
divided government?" 8 hrs
23 mins ago
A visitor from San
Francisco, California
viewed "The Dividist Papers:
United Coalition of the Divided
- 2016 Edition" 16 hrs 49 mins
ago
A visitor from Houston,
Texas
viewed "The Dividist Papers:
Your New Improved 2015
Divided Government" 20 hrs
55 mins ago
A visitor from Phoenix,
Arizona
viewed "The Dividist Papers:
No, the GOP will not lose the
House. Not even if Trump
loses in a landslide of biblical
proportions." 1 day 1 hour
ago
A visitor from Santa
Rosa, California
viewed "The Dividist Papers:
BREAKING: Divided
Government to the rescue on
the debt ceiling "crisis"" 1 day
1 hour ago
A visitor from Fresno,
California
viewed "The Dividist Papers:
United Coalition of the Divided
- 2016 Edition" 1 day 10 hours
ago
A visitor from San
Francisco, California
viewed "The Dividist Papers:
United Coalition of the Divided
- 2016 Edition" 1 day 10 hours
ago
Real-time view

Get Feedjit

Meme Me:

Currently on

memeorandum:

UPDATED:

Cross posted at Donklephant where it prompted an interesting comment thread. Check it out.

DIVIDIST ARCHIVE:
2016 (6)

Posted by mw at 11/13/2011 10:00:00 AM

Recommend this on Google

Labels: 2010 Election, 2011 Election, Oakland, Occupy Oakland, Ranked-choice voting, San
Francisco

2015 (13)
2014 (33)
2013 (10)
2012 (45)
2011 (53)

5 comments:
Ricketson said...
Based on the arguments presented above, there seems to be a compromise system
that is the best of both worlds: a first round election that narrows the field to two
candidates via ranked-choice, and a second round election between those two
candidates.
I'm not familiar with how these elections have worked in San Francisco traditionally,
but my understanding is that ranked-choice voting is meant to address the process by
which the field of candidates is winnowed down to two.

December
2011 (3)
November
2011 (8)
Blog
Demolition
Day
Refresher
Course:
Honest
Graft vs.
Dishonest
Graft...

Indianapolis Star:

Next Slide
Gov. Mike Pence
is dropping his reelection bid
Jeremy W. Peters /
New York Times:

Speakers at
Donald Trump's
Convention: Tim
Tebow, Peter Thiel,
but No Sarah
Palin?
Patricia Murphy /
Roll Call:

Trump to Pick
Mike Pence, Says
Source

Blogroll
Marginal Revolution

11/13/11, 11:22 AM
mw said...
Agreed. Using 2nd and 3rd choice votes to actually determine the final outcome of
elected leadership is a bridge too far.

Rankedchoice
Voting:
Epic Fail
in
Oakland.

I disagree.

Meanwhile,
in the
People's
Republic
of San
Francis...

If we used an automatic two-stage approach that first treated the (up to 3) rankings
as approval votes to determine three finalists and then employed IRV to determine
the final winner, it would be more simple and people would have more incentive to
rank mroe candidates.

Chinese
Communis
t leader
eviscerates
European
welf...

11/13/11, 11:36 AM
DLW said...

buyers remorse over the elected candidate is a lousy arg against IRV. The same can
happen more often with FPTP. And that's what this waters down to.
IRV worked. It's changing the incentives for how candidates should campaign. And
that's why they're pitching an alternative to replace IRV.
They'd rather swing the vote in a runoff where the overall turnout is much less (and
somewhat mroe conservative) in a second round. This is old fashioned electoral
politics, pure and simple!!!

The Great Chocolate

Boom
8 minutes ago

Reason - Hit and

Run
North Carolina
Exempts Police Body
Cam Footage From
Public Records
Requirements
11 minutes ago

The Other McCain

How to Meet Atheist
Social Justice Queers
(Because Online Dating
Is for Losers)
14 minutes ago

After only 10
months in
office
Mayor
Jean Quan
uni...

MIschiefs of Faction
- Vox

The Corzine
Caper

Fix Pacifica

STRIKE!
STRIKE!
STRIKE!

Pimp the rule that benefits you, trash the rule that forces you to change.

October 2011
(1)

dlw

August 2011
(3)

12/3/11, 9:06 AM

July 2011 (3)

June 2011 (7)

Mike Pence launched

Republicans war on
Planned Parenthood
36 minutes ago

Press Release: Library

Bond Reconsideration
45 minutes ago

Eunomia
Reports: Pence Will Be
Trumps VP Choice
46 minutes ago

Calculated Risk
Looking back 7 Years
Ago: The Sluggish
Recovery Began
55 minutes ago

mw said...

May 2011 (2)

@ dlw
First - In our election just passed, I supported Ed Lee as my second choice, and he
won. So this is not sour grapes in SF for me. However, it remains an open question
for many whether he would have won in a runoff. I think he would have,other think
he would not. In the Sheriff's election I've no doubt that our completely unqualified
sheriff-elect Ross Mirkarimi would have lost to either the 2nd or 3rd place qualified
finishers who split the qualified vote and did not campaign in tandem to defeat
Mirkarimi. Others disagree. That is the point. Nobody knows, because voters were
denied the opportunity to make a clear, simple unambiguous choice between the top
two candidates. As a result, for both candidates I supported and candidates I did not,
there is a real question of democratic legitimacy staining the winners of the election.
Just as there is a question about Jean Quan. Confidence in the electoral results are
undermined. Democracy is not well served.

April 2011 (5)

Legal
Insurrection

March 2011
(6)

REPORTS: TrumpPence Ticket it is!

Second, The turnout in this hotly contested SF mayoral election with 16 candidates
was lowest in decades. So the whole "turnout" argument evaporates.
Third, note that when you say this "Pimp the rule that benefits you..." you are
describing exactly your argument in the prior sentence: "They'd rather swing the vote
in a runoff where the overall turnout is much less (and somewhat mroe
conservative) in a second round."

February 2011
(10)
January 2011
(5)

Want to End War?

Privatize the VA.
2 hours ago

2009 (43)
2008 (78)

Glittering Eye
Can Clinton Win in a
Change Election?
2 hours ago

2007 (94)
2006 (76)

JustOneMinute
Searching For Scandal
in the Empty Spaces
3 hours ago

Join Our Glorious

Movement and Stand in
Solidarity with the
Coalition of the Divided!

Fausta's Blog
Brazil: Brazilian
member of ISIS
planned attack against
French Olympic team
3 hours ago

The Federalist

Government and let me know. I

3 Massive
Problems
With
Hillary
Clintons
New Anti-Trump Ad

will link you, blogroll you,

3 hours ago

Want to join The Coalition of

I repeat what I said in the post. It is utter nonsense to claim that there is a "better
democracy" than giving voters a choice between two candidates, let them vote
between the two candidates, and declare the one with the most votes the winner.
This is the definition of a democratic election.

Cato @ Liberty

2010 (79)

You perceive the more conservative candidate has a better chance in a simple runoff,
you don't want that, so you want to pimp the rules. Three words for you:
Pot. Kettle. Black.

1 hour ago

the Divided? Just write a post

supporting Divided

favorite you, digg you, paint

your house and walk your dog.

Jonathan Turley

Also, feel free to rip any of my

GINSBURG ISSUES
STATEMENT OF
REGRET FOR

graphics to promote the

concept.

Nobody is confused by an election between two candidates and the one with a
majority of votes wins. When voters are not confused and have confidence in the
results - democracy wins.

TRUMP ATTACK
3 hours ago

COALITION OF THE
DIVIDED:
2012 Election Edition

Asymmetric
Information - Megan
McArdle

2012 Coalition of the

Divided link post

Sexual Harassment Is
Invisible to Half the
Population

This experiment failed. We will kill RCV in San Francisco.

12/3/11, 12:40 PM

5 hours ago

DLW said...
1. In a runoff, there's more info and scope for strategic voting, as such it does not
matter if IRV and a runoff system would not always yield the same results.

COALITION OF THE
DIVIDED:
2010 Midterm Edition

League of Ordinary
Gentlemen
Morning Ed: World
{2016.07.14.Th}
9 hours ago

2. You have me at a disadvantage wrt the specifics of the San Fran eelctions. WRT a
clear and unambiguous choice, a lot of that is still smoke and mirrors. The top 2 are
the top 2 because of the valuations made by voters.
3. Confidence in IRV can be restored. It replicates a caucus system. It is being
attacked, not necessarily for the right reasons....
4. As for turnout, that depends on a perception of uncertainty as to the election
outcome. If there were no serious front-runner rivals to the eventual winner, it
doesn't follow that IRV leads to higher turnout. Me, I think it's important that IRV be
complemented by the use of 3-seat forms of PR for more city council elections, since
that would increase the number of competitive seats and possibly turnout.

2010 Coalition of the

Divided Link Post

COALITION OF THE
DIVIDED:
2008 Election Edition
2008 Coalition of the
Divided Link Post

Brain Pickings
100 Days of
Overthinking: An
Illustrated Diary of
Mental Meanderings
12 hours ago

Last Best Hope of

Earth
Negotiating with
Mexico
16 hours ago

BUY ME: The Dividist

Market

Questions and
Observations
Economic Statistics for
13 Jul 16

5. As for Pot Kettle Black.

Democracy is meant to be based on the people. This mandates the use of elections
where turnout is more likely to represent the people. The 2nd rounds do not
represent the people well. This is not simply pimping my preferred outcome, although
I do prefer for the de facto political center to be closer to the true political center.

16 hours ago

Not PC
Bastille
Day!

A clear 2 way contest is not the def'n of democracy. With more candidates, more
ideas are expressed. People rank the candidates based on their preferences. The one
with the most top preferences wins. It's simple. It needs to be complimented by the
greater use of American forms of PR, not a second round.

16 hours ago

Contra O'Reilly
On Marc Lamont Hill
Going on CNN the
Other Night and Saying
that the NYPD Crime
Statistics Relative to
Race Are Phony

dlw
12/7/11, 12:19 PM

18 hours ago

Post a Comment
FiveThirtyEight
Nate Silver

Links to this post

Create a Link
Wake up and smell the coffee in
your Divided Government mug!

Newer Post

Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Older Post

THE DIVIDIST HAS

YOUR BACK:
On your bumper

Election Update: When

To Freak Out About
Shocking New Polls
19 hours ago

Jack of Kent blog

Article 50 and Brexit:
Are Estragon and
Vladimir on the move?
20 hours ago

Musings from the

Den Mother
I Hope Youre Not
Dead
21 hours ago

Outside the Beltway

Tom Brady, N.F.L.P.A.
Lose Petition For Full
Second Circuit Review
22 hours ago
Show All

Busy Blogs Roll

Daily Caller
Photos Of Casey
Anthony Just Surfaced
See What The
Accused Child
Murderer Looks Like
Now - The nation hated
her...
25 minutes ago

Moderate Voice
Media reports: Trump
picks Pence as V.P
running mate - [image:
Republican presidential
candidate Donald
Trump (R) and Indiana
Governor Mike Pence
(L) wave to the crowd
before addressing the
crowd during a
campa...
34 minutes ago

Crooked Timber

GOOGLE
PAGEVIEWS:

630,812

Parris on the Brexiteers

- Here. The day of the
referendum result, I
was waiting outside the
tent where CNN were
filming on College
Green near Parliament.
In front of the camera I
sa...
2 days ago

DIVIDIST
CONTRIBUTORS:
Dividist
Harlan Wallach
Tully
mw

Awesome Inc. template. Powered by Blogger.