Here is an interesting exchange from the FairVoteOR list: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 14:15:25 -0700 From: Fillard Rhyne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: FairVoteOR <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [FairVoteOR] Why 3 and not 4? >SM> Does anyone know why we are being offered to rank 3 instead of >SM> four candidates? Ideally, an instant runoff ballot would allow you to mark an unlimited number of choices. For example, Cambridge, Massachusetts uses a system closely related to instant runoff, and if there are 20 candidates printed on the ballot, they get to rank 20 choices. However, most of the ballot-scanning machines currently used in Oregon can't read more than three ovals in any one row. Since we feel ballots are most intuitive when all the ovals for a single candidate can be laid out in a single row, we decided to allow elections officials to limit the number of choices to as few as 3. The phrasing we use in the initiative is "at least 3", thereby leaving the door open for elections officials to allow more than 3 choices in the future when ballot-scanning machines are more capable. >SM> It seems like by choosing 3 that you are likely to >SM> eliminate a third-party candidate in the first round. Wouldn't >SM> it be possible for a 3rd party candidate to win on the second >SM> round of balloting even if they ranked third out of 4 in the >SM> first round? No, it isn't. Why don't you give me a call at 503-777-VOTE and we can talk about it, and I can send you some petitions. Also, I encourage you to attend this Tuesday's petitioners' orientation at 6pm at the PSU Smith Memorial Center in the Cascade Room (i.e. 1825 SW Broadway, Room 236). Thanks for your help! Fillard Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
