------------ Forwarded Letter ----------- Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2001 18:56:24 -0000 From: "James Gilmour" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: FWD - Election of UK Speaker now by Irving: [Martin Harper of [EM] wrote:] > They seem to have picked IRV as a replacement. Not quite. The committee has recommended the exhaustive ballot which is similar to, but not identical to, IRV (= Alternative Vote) because each stage is a separate ballot in which electors mark only one X against one candidate. If no candidate has an overall majority, a process of successive elimination follows. Electors can change their minds in each successive round, or vote or not vote as they wish. With IRV (AV) each voter expresses all of his or her preferences at the same time, ie without any prior knowledge of how the candidates have been ranked. This may help avoid some of the worst excesses of horse-trading among the supporters of the various groups contesting the single-place election. IRV would be just too revolutionary for the UK House of Commons! Ironically, several of the UK political parties use IRV to elect their own leaders!! James Gilmour - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------- Original Letter ----------- Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 15:06:31 +0000 From: Martin Harper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [EM] Election of UK Speaker re: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1171000/1171438.stm The UK Speaker is supposed to be someone who has the broad support of the entire house, who will be able to fill a role that is supposedly above party politics. The old system was some hideous mutant hybrid of plurality, and the committee has right[ly] decided that it should be put to death. Sadly, they seem to have picked IRV as a replacement. Ugh. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
