In belated response to:
> From: Mike Ositoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Santa Clara's choice
<SNIP>
> Runoff has a definite & concrete way in which it's better than
> FPP: If a CW makes the runoff, he can't lose. That means that,
> while a CW needs to get the most votes to win in FPP, he onlly
> needs to come in 1st or 2nd in Runoff. That's a concrete
> improvement.
>
> I don't know of anything like that which can be said for IRO,
> in comparison to FPP.
I have just posted some criteria which AV/IRO meets but FPP doesn't.
I think the main one is to do with throwing out 'tyrants'. I note
that Runoff meets this criteria where one has a second ballot,
because there will still be an opponent left who then beats the
tyrant. Technically, 'avoiding vote-splitting' seems like a nice
condition, which AV/IRO meets but FPP and Runoff do not.
> You never hurt your upper choices by voting for your lower
> choices? No, not unless you try to protect those lower choices
> from elimination :-)
What do you think of the tactical voting criteria I posted?
> I'm not saying that it can be said that Runoff is definitely
> better than IRO. When things are so different they're difficult
> to compare.
And I am not (yet?) saying the converse. But I think my criteria are
somehow more natural than yours.
By the way, in the UK I don't think Runoff would give a different
winner from FPP very often. AV/IRO would make a difference more
often, and would favour a moderate candidate. Until politics adapt to
the new rules, that is!
Cheers.
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry, but apparently I have to do this. :-(
The views expressed above are entirely those of the writer
and do not represent the views, policy or understanding of
any other person or official body.
