Tony Solg�rd said:
... the way to use IRV in the endorsement process ... is to use the instant runoff mechanism
on the first ballot to narrow the field to two candidates. ... the convention proceeds to a second ballot
with those same two candidates and continues as DFL conventions normally do.
In this version of IRV, it doesn't sound much different from the present method of multiple ballots to endorse someone. The only difference is that the DFL's current procedure doesn't eliminate everyone other than the top two finishers after just one ballot. Now, it takes several ballots before the winnowing starts taking place. And I 'm not so sure that slower winnowing isn't better than "instant" winnowing.
And, frankly, from the delegates perspective, I think most support one person and don't really start thinking of who else might be okay until it becomes evident that their candidate isn't drawing anymore votes. I think it's going to require a complete change in mind-set to say on the first ballot that someone else other than his or her most-favored candidate is okay too. That's why slow winnowing may be better. (Speed may not be all that it's cranked up to be.)
There's also the issue of how to handle the "no endorsement" option. Is "no endorsement" always an option on all ballots -- including the first one? And what happens if "no endorsement" comes in a poor fourth (or 19th) on the first ballot? Is it permanently eliminated or does it somehow revive to be added back in on later ballots? (I think it has to be an option on the first ballot because "no endorsement" might be everyone's 2nd preference rather than any of the other candidates.) And, even on later ballots, does "no endorsement" have to win by the same 60% as a regular candidate? (Or, alternatively, is it a separate procedural motion that makes for two processes going on simultaneously: the balloting and the procedural issue of when to give up and go home.)
And, I still think that in a convention format it's a different world than in an election at the polls. And in an election you've got machine-readable ballots and computers to do all the calculations. And, what's more, you have all night to get the results. In a convention, the process of counting, probably recounting (for second or third choices for ONLY selected ballots), and calculating the results is going to take forever -- and there are several hundred impatient people waiting for the results.
I think that IRV may have some points to consider for elections. However, for a convention with a requirement of an extra-ordinary majority, it's being stretched to cover something that it wasn't designed to cover.
Steve Cross Prospect Park REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
