You know, the one thing that always confused me about IRV was this... Some people choose A through J as first choice.
D is the loser in terms of IRV for the first round. Why should the people who chose the loser get the power to then decide the winner in subsequent rounds? I mean, the people I'd trust LEAST would be those who had the audacity to chose the bottom candidate in a field of 10. It's just a principle thing. It's like letting the people who want Grub flavored ice cream get to decide between chocolate and vanilla. Eww! -----Original Message----- From: Donald Davison [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 9:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EM] Subject: [EM] 05/23/02 - Single-Seat Cumulative is not FPTP: 05/23/02 - Single-Seat Cumulative is not FPTP: Greetings list members, I proposed Single-Seat Cumulative as a solution to some failings that exist in FPTP and Approval Voting. Most people prefer to vote for only one candidate, but some people may wish to divide their vote and support two or more candidates. FPTP will allow people to vote for only one candidate, but in no way does it allow anyone to support two or more candidates, this is a failing of FPTP. Approval Voting does allow some people to support two or more candidates with one full vote for each candidate, but most of the people are short changed because they are only allowed to support their one candidate with only one vote, this is a failing of Approval Voting. If people wish to divide their vote between two or more candidates, they should be allowed to do so, but they are not entitled to extra votes in order to do it. Fair is Fair - every voter should have the same number of votes to cast anyway they care to cast them. Single-Seat Cumulative is the solution to these failings that exist in FPTP and Approval Voting. Now, I agree that if all the voters were to give all their votes to one candidate each, then the Single-Seat Cumulative election would be the same as FPTP, but that result is not in evidence in the real world. While most would give all their votes to one candidate, the door has been left open for some to divide their votes between two or more candidates that they consider to be fairly equal, and that, more likely will be the case. While Single-Seat Cumulative is better than FPTP or Approval Voting, all three are unacceptable because all three will not always yield a candidate with a majority of the votes. IRVing is the best solution. It allows every voter to place the full weight of their vote on one candidate as most voters wish to do, but each voter can support other candidates by ranking those other candidates. In the event your first choice is last, you will be asked to change your vote, your next choice is your change of vote. Voters are allowed to keep changing their votes until one candidate has a majority. The lessons to be learned here are as follows: * That almost all voters want to be able to place the full weight of their voting power on one candidate. * That all candiates want this full voting power placed on them. * That all voters should have the same weight of voting power, like either only one vote each or having the same number of votes to cast anyway they want. * That there should be some way to support other candidates. * That the winning candidate should have a majority of the total votes. Only IRVing has learned and can abide by all these lessons. Regards, Donald Davison, host of New Democracy at http://www.mich.com/~donald Candidate Election Methods +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ | Q U O T A T I O N | | "Democracy is a beautiful thing, | | except that part about letting just any old yokel vote." | | - Age 10 - | +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ APV Approval Voting ATV Alternative Vote aka IRV Instant Runoff Voting aka IRVing FPTP First Past The Post aka Plurality NOTA None of the Above aka RON Re-Open Nominations STV Single Transferable Vote aka Choice Voting aka Hare-Clark aka Preference Voting aka Hare Preferential Voting Please be advised that sending email to me allows me to quote from it and/or forward the entire email to others. ---- For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. This communication is for information purposes only and should not be regarded as an offer to sell or as a solicitation of an offer to buy any financial product, an official confirmation of any transaction, or as an official statement of Lehman Brothers. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. Therefore, we do not represent that this information is complete or accurate and it should not be relied upon as such. All information is subject to change without notice. ---- For more information about this list (subscribe, unsubscribe, FAQ, etc), please see http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/em
