RCVCalifornia

Let's build a better democracy for all Californians with the California Ranked-Choice Voting Act.

[RCVCalifornia @RCVCalifornia]

If you think that California would be better with

1) #RankedChoiceVoting in our primary and general elections
2) #ProportionalRepresentation in the California Senate

and you want to help make that real, volunteer to help us circulate petitions here: https://t.co/DaD0V6Lmil

[FairVote @fairvote]

BREAKING: The largest city in the country, New York City, just passed #RankedChoiceVoting!!!

[RCVCalifornia @RCVCalifornia]

@gilsery @VoteMatrix Yeah. The multiwinner RCV's (called STV there) proportionality lets them have that many. Worth noting that it's not just that, though; it reflects that the people there actually want that many parties. Malta uses a very similar system and is completely two-party dominated.

[RCVCalifornia @RCVCalifornia]

The title and summary is now available, so petition circulation will begin shortly. Petitions + Instructions will be available for download sometime tomorrow.

https://t.co/WsHhRBFWM6

[RCVCalifornia @RCVCalifornia]

@ElectoralRef0rm @VoteMatrix There was nothing in there about a proportionality of ideological makeup, except in the sense we've already discussed PAV possessing (which is weaker than the proportionality in STV).

[RCVCalifornia @RCVCalifornia]

@ElectoralRef0rm @VoteMatrix By that, I mean "throwing around acronyms". Realized after tweeting that it could come off as condescending, which wasn't intended.

[RCVCalifornia @RCVCalifornia]

@ElectoralRef0rm @VoteMatrix Pretty much everybody I've ever seen discussing voting systems does...

Anyways, it's the main PR axiom behind STV: https://t.co/WiBeKLlYeg

[RCVCalifornia @RCVCalifornia]

@ElectoralRef0rm @VoteMatrix Do you have a formal mathematical definition of this kind of proportionality, along the lines of DPC/PSC?

[RCVCalifornia @RCVCalifornia]

@ElectoralRef0rm @VoteMatrix You absolutely can much more heavily influence which candidates within your party win under STV than under PAV. If my party in STV gets N quotas, we get N seats, period. I can alter my rankings within the party as I please, and that won't change.

[RCVCalifornia @RCVCalifornia]

@ElectoralRef0rm @VoteMatrix The method you're suggesting instead isn't even proportional, unless the voter gives up their ability to indicate preference between other parties or candidates within their own party.

There might be better methods than STV, but what you're selling isn't it.

[RCVCalifornia @RCVCalifornia]

@ElectoralRef0rm @VoteMatrix I agree there's a trade off there in PAV, but I think STV does a better job on both fronts while still retaining a PR guarantee, which PAV doesn't.

[RCVCalifornia @RCVCalifornia]

@ElectoralRef0rm @VoteMatrix I'm aware of this method. It's proportional, but only assuming that voters only approve members of their own party. That's kind of what I meant about being proportional while letting voters indicate distinguish between candidates; STV lets you do that, this method doesn't.

[RCVCalifornia @RCVCalifornia]

@gilsery @VoteMatrix Yep!

A couple good visualizations of actual elections using this system can be found here (just scroll down to "visualizations") and pick a year and constituency to look at a few different ones: https://t.co/k8dfHAosAy

[RCVCalifornia @RCVCalifornia]

@VoteMatrix Well, in the short run the primary concern is simply if it's even possible to qualify for ballot.

We do understand your concern, though; we just ultimately concluded that combining single winner reform with PR was the best approach.

[RCVCalifornia @RCVCalifornia]

@UtilaTheEcon @VoteMatrix "While letting voters distinguish between candidates" was the key point there. If the only goal was just proportionality with two levels (Approve and Not-Approve), I'd just say to use party list.

[RCVCalifornia @RCVCalifornia]

@UtilaTheEcon @VoteMatrix Being able to distinguish between candidates is key to obtaining a design goal like ensuring minority groups can guarantee representation.

Not everybody thinks maximizing winner utility is the primary goal for election methods, especially in a multiwinner context.

[RCVCalifornia @RCVCalifornia]

@VoteMatrix There aren't really any good multi-winner forms of Approval voting that provide proportional representation while letting voters distinguish between candidates. Multi-winner RCV, on the other hand, does both and has a pretty long history of use elsewhere in the world.

[RCVCalifornia @RCVCalifornia]

@VoteMatrix So if, say, the quota was 30,000 votes and a candidate got 60,000 votes, they would retain the equivalent amount of 30,000 votes (the quota necessary for election) and half of the previous weight of each vote would transfer on to its next preference.

[RCVCalifornia @RCVCalifornia]

@VoteMatrix Sure thing! So basically, that's a reference to the multi-winner form of RCV. It sets a quota of votes a candidate needs in order to be elected; in the case a candidate has more votes than the quota, the portions of each vote contributing to that surplus are transferred.

[RCVCalifornia @RCVCalifornia]

Reason 26 to support the California #RankedChoiceVoting Act: It will ensure that the voices of more Californians are meaningfully heard in our political process, and that more of those voices translate into meaningful representation.

Last one of these. Petitions begin soon.

[RCVCalifornia @RCVCalifornia]

Reason 25 to support the California #RankedChoiceVoting Act: Because ignoring all the upsides of the measure, we need to have a serious discussion in California about reforms, electoral and otherwise, to our political system. Ballot measures are a way to start that discussion.