Re: [EM] IRV in the news
From: Jan Kok [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 7/24/06, Monkey Puzzle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can anybody say Straw Man? I don't understand what you're trying to say, M.P. No one (on this list) is claiming this North Carolina thing is real IRV. The NC thing is an abomination. However, it is a good tactical move by people who are opposed to voting reform. They are in effect creating a straw man version of IRV (see it isn't any better than the run-off). I don't know if that is what the poster was referring to. It also has the advantage that it kicks away one of the benefits of IRV from any future reform debates. Voting reformers cannot claim that their method saves money by eliminating the 2nd run-off election. Btw, is the new law equivalent to the old run-off rules ? Would there be no 2nd election if the winner of the first round got more than 40% ? Maybe, they were just trying to keep the law consistant ? election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] IRV in the news
At 8:07 AM -0700 7/27/06, Jonathan Lundell wrote: At 3:09 AM -0400 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Btw, is the new law equivalent to the old run-off rules ? Would there be no 2nd election if the winner of the first round got more than 40% ? Maybe, they were just trying to keep the law consistant ? Yes, that appears to be the case. They've basically collapsed their existing runoff system into a single election. I meant to add: and that's fine with me; I just wish they hadn't called it IRV. But that's the problem with IRV as a name for single-winner STV: NC's method is instant, and it's a runoff, but that's not the central point of single-winner STV, just a side benefit. -- /Jonathan Lundell. election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
