Denver city councilwoman Kathleen MacKenzie is leading an effort to
get rid of their Plurality + delayed runoff election method, used for
electing city council members and a few other city officers, and
replacing it with IRV. 10 days ago I attended a meeting of that
group. There were about 12
Jan Kok [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think a victory for IRV in Denver would be a step SIDEways for
voting reform in general. Yes, IRV is better than Plurality + delayed
top-two runoff. Yes, a victory for IRV would get the issue of voting
reform a little more into the public consciousness;
I've removed the Approval Voting address from the To: header since
I'm banned there. Jan can forward this if he thinks it relevant to that list.
At 08:24 AM 6/11/2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Right. However, the real problem is that it is hard to change the
voting
system as the current winners
Jan Kok wrote:
I would like for Denver to adopt something better than plain old IRV.
Looking at the link, I was glad to see that they were proposing to
implement IRV properly,
and not some abomination like automated Top-Two Runoff (TTR) or not
allowing full ranking.
1. Proportional
Once again, this message is sent to a series of lists, including the
Approval Voting list, where I'm banned. I've deleted that from the
series, Mr. Kok can forward it if he thinks it relevant.
At 12:09 PM 6/11/2006, Chris Benham wrote:
Elections should be decided directly by the votes of
The approach I'm taking is to write all the good methods into law and
allow the election official in charge (secretary of state, county
clerk, etc) to pick from an approved method.
I've been writing something up sorta in the format of California Law
which I think is almost ready and I plan
At 03:45 PM 6/11/2006, Chris Benham wrote:
That assumes that the interests and/or preferences of voters are
identical to the candidates they
vote for.
This is an argument against representative democracy, isn't it?
Mr. Benham is assuming, first of all, that candidates in an Asset
Voting
