Someone needs to tell Thomas Friedman that Alternative Voting (IRV) isn't all
it's claimed to be.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/opinion/24friedman.html
Also apparently Larry Diamond, a Stanford University democracy expert (as
cited by Friedman), who sounds like probably a smart and nice guy
Brian Olson wrote:
Someone needs to tell Thomas Friedman that Alternative Voting (IRV)
isn't all it's claimed to be.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/opinion/24friedman.html
It appears that FairVote's strategy is working, for some value of
working at least. In so insistently giving the
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On Mar 23, 2010, at 9:01 AM, Terry Bouricius wrote:
[...]
Since the bill, as passed, actually
used a top-two contingent system (only the top two initial candidates
would advance), the tally would be relatively easy.
so the regional venues would report
On Mar 24, 2010, at 4:42 AM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
On Mar 23, 2010, at 9:01 AM, Terry Bouricius wrote:
[...]
Since the bill, as passed, actually
used a top-two contingent system (only the top two initial
candidates
would advance), the tally would
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 4:54 AM, robert bristow-johnson
r...@audioimagination.com wrote:
is that why IRV
(under whatever name) was first plugged for government elections in
multiparty environments?
It seems that what Fairvote want is PR-STV.
The hope is presumably, that if they can get voters
Robert,
Responding to two of your points...
1. How would a statewide tally have been done under the IRV bill that
passed the Vermont legislature, and
2. How did FairVote come to advocate IRV.
1. Because the legislators did not want to buy new voting machines, the
decision was made to pass
robert bristow-johnson wrote:
It seems that what Fairvote want is PR-STV.
The hope is presumably, that if they can get voters used to
ranked ballots and eliminations with IRV, they can then argue
that moving onto PR-STV is just changing to the multiseat
version of IRV.
Surely a major
Raph Frank Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2010 11:01 PM
In relation to the Swiss Federal Parliament election system
It is like a cumulative voting version of MMP, but there is
no mechanism for a candidate to win without being a member of a party.
No, it's not at all like MMP. In MMP half or
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 4:01 PM, James Gilmour jgilm...@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
No, it's not at all like MMP. In MMP half or more of the members are elected
from single-member electoral districts (usually by
FPTP). The additional members in MMP are elected by party-list (usually
Raph Frank Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 5:31 PM
Sorry, I wasn't clear at all.
No, it certainly wasn't clear.
I was thinking of the decoy
list issue with MMP.
I don't think this is at all a helpful way of looking at the Swiss CN voting
system.
What I meant was that it is like MMP in
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 6:14 PM, James Gilmour jgilm...@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
No, it is not at all like MMP in that. ALL the votes are party votes. All
the votes are used to allocate seats to parties and then
the votes within parties are used to decide which candidates should fill the
Raph Frank wrote:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 4:01 PM, James Gilmour
jgilm...@globalnet.co.uk wrote:
No, it's not at all like MMP. In MMP half or more of the members
are elected from single-member electoral districts (usually by
FPTP). The additional members in MMP are elected by party-list
Would it be possible to plant one's own candidates inside the
competing parties and vote for them? Probably not in practice even if
this was possible in theory.
Ability to influence which candidates of the other parties will be
elected changes the nature of the system a bit in any case (=
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 9:12 PM, Juho juho.la...@gmail.com wrote:
Would it be possible to plant one's own candidates inside the competing
parties and vote for them? Probably not in practice even if this was
possible in theory.
Ability to influence which candidates of the other parties will be
14 matches
Mail list logo
