When discussing the gaming of the system, it's best to identify the *type* of RCV being used. I think the Ausies use instant-runoff, which (again, I think) is more susceptible to accidentally choosing a wacko than *purposefully* choosing your person.
On 6/22/20 8:45 AM, Gillian Densmore wrote: > AAAAH!. Ok I think I understand where you are coming from. ^_^ When I get > back from adulting (Joke: Am an adult? since when?)I'll watch. It my hunches > are that the candidates that run and get picked for what ever position We > don't get much diversity for pet projects. And that their is a lot of finger > pointing. Media distortions from little things like zooming in on crowds to > make them look larger then they are, to bigger things, like focusing more on > particular candidates isn't helping. > And yeah having two more or less stuck platforms might also be a part of that > mess. > Right now we had 3 very different candidates. But then vermot and one of the > other states basically held their votes without even offering mail in votes. > Much less something online. And we see what that lead to. > > I didn't know Australia let you vote for more than 1 person. Isn't santa fe > supposed to have that? > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 9:24 AM cody dooderson <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > The point is that the problem with our voting system is very subtle. It > is too easily manipulatable even if every vote is counted. -- ☣ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
