Re: [EM] IRV in the news
From: Jan Kok [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 7/24/06, Monkey Puzzle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can anybody say Straw Man? I don't understand what you're trying to say, M.P. No one (on this list) is claiming this North Carolina thing is real IRV. The NC thing is an abomination. However, it is a good tactical move by people who are opposed to voting reform. They are in effect creating a straw man version of IRV (see it isn't any better than the run-off). I don't know if that is what the poster was referring to. It also has the advantage that it kicks away one of the benefits of IRV from any future reform debates. Voting reformers cannot claim that their method saves money by eliminating the 2nd run-off election. Btw, is the new law equivalent to the old run-off rules ? Would there be no 2nd election if the winner of the first round got more than 40% ? Maybe, they were just trying to keep the law consistant ? election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] IRV in the news
At 8:07 AM -0700 7/27/06, Jonathan Lundell wrote: At 3:09 AM -0400 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Btw, is the new law equivalent to the old run-off rules ? Would there be no 2nd election if the winner of the first round got more than 40% ? Maybe, they were just trying to keep the law consistant ? Yes, that appears to be the case. They've basically collapsed their existing runoff system into a single election. I meant to add: and that's fine with me; I just wish they hadn't called it IRV. But that's the problem with IRV as a name for single-winner STV: NC's method is instant, and it's a runoff, but that's not the central point of single-winner STV, just a side benefit. -- /Jonathan Lundell. election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] IRV in the news
Can anybody say Straw Man? On 21 Jul 2006 17:47:07 -0700, Brian Olson wrote: Holy Cloned Candidates, Batman! For once I wish the fairvote.org folks would step in and make them do IRV and STV right. As soon as I find the relevant people in North Carolina, I'll have to send them my version - http://bolson.org/voting/law/ ElectionSystemsCode.html On Jul 21, 2006, at 3:40 PM, Jonathan Lundell wrote: At 3:28 PM -0700 7/21/06, Brian Olson wrote: Also, I really hope this is reporter error and they're not actually implementing the broken bizarro-IRV described in the article. Worse, actually. Check out their multi-seat variation. http://www.ncleg.net/sessions/2005/bills/house/html/h1024v5.html As used in this section, instant runoff voting means a system in which voters rank up to three of the candidates by order of preference, first, second, or third. If the candidate with the most first?choice votes receives the threshold of victory of the first?choice votes, that candidate wins. If no candidate receives the threshold of victory of first?choice votes, the two candidates with the greatest number of first?choice votes advance to a second round of counting. In this round, each ballot counts as a vote for whichever of the two final candidates is ranked highest by the voter. The candidate with the most votes in the second round wins the election. The threshold of victory of first?choice votes for a partisan primary shall be forty percent (40%) plus one vote. The threshold of victory for a nonpartisan election and runoff or nonpartisan primary and election shall be a majority of the vote. The threshold of victory in a contest that normally uses nonpartisan plurality shall be determined by the State Board with the concurrence of the county board of elections and the local governing board. If more than one seat is to be filled in the same race, the voter votes the same way as if one seat were to be filled. The counting is the same as when one seat is to be filled, with one or two rounds as needed, except that counting is done separately for each seat to be filled. The first counting results in the first winner. Then the second count proceeds without the name of the first winner. This process results in the second winner. For each additional seat to be filled, an additional count is done without the names of the candidates who have already won. -- /Jonathan Lundell. election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info -- araucaria dot araucana at gmail dot com http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/User:Araucaria election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] IRV in the news
On 7/24/06, Monkey Puzzle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Can anybody say Straw Man? I don't understand what you're trying to say, M.P. No one (on this list) is claiming this North Carolina thing is real IRV. The NC thing is an abomination. Regular IRV in Florida 2000 would have given us Gore, the Condorcet Winner. The NC abomination would have given the win to Bush, the Plurality Winner, due to the 40% rule. I'll take the CW over the PW any day of the week. - Jan On 21 Jul 2006 17:47:07 -0700, Brian Olson wrote: Holy Cloned Candidates, Batman! For once I wish the fairvote.org folks would step in and make them do IRV and STV right. As soon as I find the relevant people in North Carolina, I'll have to send them my version - http://bolson.org/voting/law/ ElectionSystemsCode.html On Jul 21, 2006, at 3:40 PM, Jonathan Lundell wrote: At 3:28 PM -0700 7/21/06, Brian Olson wrote: Also, I really hope this is reporter error and they're not actually implementing the broken bizarro-IRV described in the article. Worse, actually. Check out their multi-seat variation. http://www.ncleg.net/sessions/2005/bills/house/html/h1024v5.html As used in this section, instant runoff voting means a system in which voters rank up to three of the candidates by order of preference, first, second, or third. If the candidate with the most first?choice votes receives the threshold of victory of the first?choice votes, that candidate wins. If no candidate receives the threshold of victory of first?choice votes, the two candidates with the greatest number of first?choice votes advance to a second round of counting. In this round, each ballot counts as a vote for whichever of the two final candidates is ranked highest by the voter. The candidate with the most votes in the second round wins the election. The threshold of victory of first?choice votes for a partisan primary shall be forty percent (40%) plus one vote. The threshold of victory for a nonpartisan election and runoff or nonpartisan primary and election shall be a majority of the vote. The threshold of victory in a contest that normally uses nonpartisan plurality shall be determined by the State Board with the concurrence of the county board of elections and the local governing board. If more than one seat is to be filled in the same race, the voter votes the same way as if one seat were to be filled. The counting is the same as when one seat is to be filled, with one or two rounds as needed, except that counting is done separately for each seat to be filled. The first counting results in the first winner. Then the second count proceeds without the name of the first winner. This process results in the second winner. For each additional seat to be filled, an additional count is done without the names of the candidates who have already won. -- /Jonathan Lundell. election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info -- araucaria dot araucana at gmail dot com http://wiki.electorama.com/wiki/User:Araucaria election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] IRV in the news
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. Then you win. If this is somewhere between laughing at us and attacking us, we should be on schedule to get better election methods around here in the next couple years. :-) Also, I really hope this is reporter error and they're not actually implementing the broken bizarro-IRV described in the article. And of course we all hope that the radical way to think when you go to the polls is who do you really want instead of who do you strategically want and compromise for. On Jul 21, 2006, at 3:04 PM, Jonathan Lundell wrote: I like IRV OK, and better than many on this list. But where do they come up with this stuff? (I do like the last graf, though.) Bill for 20 instant-runoff elections passes Senate THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Thursday, July 20, 2006 RALEIGH A wide-ranging election bill approved by the N.C. Senate yesterday will allow up to 20 counties and cities to try instant runoffs as a way to avoid costly and poorly attended runoff elections. The bill would also increase the time between primary elections and runoffs from four weeks to seven weeks. State elections officials have said they need more time to canvass primary-election votes and mail out or send absentee ballots for overseas and military voters for those elections. The instant-runoff program would allow voters in local elections to rank their order of preference among the candidates listed. Election officials would first tally only the first choices. If the leading candidate fails to win more than 40 percent of the first-choice votes, the top two candidates would advance to the runoff. Election officials would then examine the ballots of voters whose preferred candidate was eliminated. The remaining candidates would get votes for being the highest-ranked alternative choice. Those votes would be added to their original tally and the candidate with the most total votes would win. Instant runoffs are already used in other states as well as in San Francisco, said Sen. Dan Clodfelter, D-Mecklenburg, who called them a way to eliminate the costs of holding runoff elections, which generally have low turnout rates. Others worried that instant runoffs may change campaign strategies. This method of voting would lead to a very odd and radical way to think when you go to the polls, Sen. Doug Berger, D-Franklin. This appears that this is an idea from San Francisco, and I say we should leave it in San Francisco. This story can be found at: http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle %2FWSJ_BasicArticlec=MGArticlecid=1149189266508path=% 21localnewss=1037645509099 -- /Jonathan Lundell. election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] IRV in the news
At 3:28 PM -0700 7/21/06, Brian Olson wrote: Also, I really hope this is reporter error and they're not actually implementing the broken bizarro-IRV described in the article. Worse, actually. Check out their multi-seat variation. http://www.ncleg.net/sessions/2005/bills/house/html/h1024v5.html As used in this section, instant runoff voting means a system in which voters rank up to three of the candidates by order of preference, first, second, or third. If the candidate with the most first?choice votes receives the threshold of victory of the first?choice votes, that candidate wins. If no candidate receives the threshold of victory of first?choice votes, the two candidates with the greatest number of first?choice votes advance to a second round of counting. In this round, each ballot counts as a vote for whichever of the two final candidates is ranked highest by the voter. The candidate with the most votes in the second round wins the election. The threshold of victory of first?choice votes for a partisan primary shall be forty percent (40%) plus one vote. The threshold of victory for a nonpartisan election and runoff or nonpartisan primary and election shall be a majority of the vote. The threshold of victory in a contest that normally uses nonpartisan plurality shall be determined by the State Board with the concurrence of the county board of elections and the local governing board. If more than one seat is to be filled in the same race, the voter votes the same way as if one seat were to be filled. The counting is the same as when one seat is to be filled, with one or two rounds as needed, except that counting is done separately for each seat to be filled. The first counting results in the first winner. Then the second count proceeds without the name of the first winner. This process results in the second winner. For each additional seat to be filled, an additional count is done without the names of the candidates who have already won. -- /Jonathan Lundell. election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
Re: [EM] IRV in the news
Holy Cloned Candidates, Batman! For once I wish the fairvote.org folks would step in and make them do IRV and STV right. As soon as I find the relevant people in North Carolina, I'll have to send them my version - http://bolson.org/voting/law/ ElectionSystemsCode.html On Jul 21, 2006, at 3:40 PM, Jonathan Lundell wrote: At 3:28 PM -0700 7/21/06, Brian Olson wrote: Also, I really hope this is reporter error and they're not actually implementing the broken bizarro-IRV described in the article. Worse, actually. Check out their multi-seat variation. http://www.ncleg.net/sessions/2005/bills/house/html/h1024v5.html As used in this section, instant runoff voting means a system in which voters rank up to three of the candidates by order of preference, first, second, or third. If the candidate with the most first?choice votes receives the threshold of victory of the first?choice votes, that candidate wins. If no candidate receives the threshold of victory of first?choice votes, the two candidates with the greatest number of first?choice votes advance to a second round of counting. In this round, each ballot counts as a vote for whichever of the two final candidates is ranked highest by the voter. The candidate with the most votes in the second round wins the election. The threshold of victory of first?choice votes for a partisan primary shall be forty percent (40%) plus one vote. The threshold of victory for a nonpartisan election and runoff or nonpartisan primary and election shall be a majority of the vote. The threshold of victory in a contest that normally uses nonpartisan plurality shall be determined by the State Board with the concurrence of the county board of elections and the local governing board. If more than one seat is to be filled in the same race, the voter votes the same way as if one seat were to be filled. The counting is the same as when one seat is to be filled, with one or two rounds as needed, except that counting is done separately for each seat to be filled. The first counting results in the first winner. Then the second count proceeds without the name of the first winner. This process results in the second winner. For each additional seat to be filled, an additional count is done without the names of the candidates who have already won. -- /Jonathan Lundell. election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
