He never ran 1-1 against Loftus. There were a few interesting things in about race. For one, a lot of Chinatown voters who picked Tung as #1 picked Chesa as #2. This was because of a local Chinese daily’s endorsement of Chesa. These voters are mostly ESL/not fluent in English. 1/
-
-
Replying to @maksim_ioffe @MattWeiner19 and
Given that Asian Americans don’t tend to be pro-decarceration, that’s an indication these voters were confused by the complexity of RCV and candidate choices 2/
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @maksim_ioffe @MattWeiner19 and
But ultimately,
@chesaboudin split the moderate vote. Tung, Loftus, and Deutch were all moderate candidates and Chesa was the radical outlier. The fact that he won shows that RCV did not enable a maximally democratic outcome, despite its raison d’etre 3/32 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @maksim_ioffe @progressnerd and
A newspaper endorsed Chesa, so the people who read it ranked him #2? Doesn't sound like they were confused by RCV, sounds like they paid attention to the endorsement. Nothing you've said provides any indication whatsoever that the outcome wasn't maximally democratic.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MattWeiner19 @maksim_ioffe and
There are cases where RCV fails to deliver a maximally democratic outcome--in the 2009 Burlington, VT election a more centrist candidate would've won 1-on-1 against either of the other top two, but he had the third most 1st-place votes and got eliminated.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MattWeiner19 @maksim_ioffe and
So if, like, Tung would've got 75% of Loftus's second-choice votes and beat Boudin in the last round, maybe that'd be an RCV failure. But as far as we know the "moderate" votes didn't split like that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MattWeiner19 @maksim_ioffe and
Maybe you could argue that if voters had filled out their ballots completely the result would've been different, but mostly it seems like you think moderate voters *should* all have ranked other moderates second. But they didn't! Nothing undemocratic about that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MattWeiner19 @progressnerd and
I agree w/you that my analysis is mostly driven by intuition. Perhaps I should’ve disclosed this first–but you seem to have understood this. As you prob know, such data is hard to come by. In any case, it’s still interesting to think about the mechanics of what happened and why.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @maksim_ioffe @progressnerd and
It'd be interesting to see what happened if we could see comprehensive rankings instead of just round-by-round totals but AFAIK that's not available. (It is for BTV 2009.) FWIW I prefer approval voting, where you can just mark more than one candidate, unordered. Simpler.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MattWeiner19 @progressnerd and
I heard about it. Simplicity is v important. When I talked to my SF friends about RCV, no one knew exactly how it works. At the end of the day, I don’t think there exists a “perfect” voting system. Each one will have instances where it would fail to deliver “the best compromise”
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Maksim Ioffe Retweeted Maksim Ioffe
P.S. I believe that this is a big problem with CA elections and I think the proposition system there is in dire need of reform.https://twitter.com/maksim_ioffe/status/1407542678619779076?s=21 …
Maksim Ioffe added,
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.