James Gilmour wrote:
Kristofer Munsterhjelm Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:29 PM
I'm not a UK politics expert, but it seems this is a minimal concession,
of the sort one would see in negotiation. AV/IRV doesn't really lead to
multiparty systems, if Australia is to be any judge. Instead,
Kristofer Munsterhjelm Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 1:18 PM
James Gilmour wrote:
Kristofer Munsterhjelm Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:29 PM
I'm not a UK politics expert, but it seems this is a minimal concession,
of the sort one would see in negotiation. AV/IRV doesn't really
Kristofer Munsterhjelm Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2:29 PM
I'm not a UK politics expert, but it seems this is a minimal
concession,
of the sort one would see in negotiation. AV/IRV doesn't really lead to
multiparty systems, if Australia is to be any judge. Instead, you get
two
Bob Crossley wrote:
I defer to Walabio's point about Fair Votes as I know nothing about US
politics but I strongly suspect that they are currently getting a lot of
support from across the Atlantic.
You may have heard that in May the UK will have a referendum on
introducing IRV (we call it
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Kristofer Munsterhjelm
km-el...@broadpark.no wrote:
I'm not a UK politics expert, but it seems this is a minimal concession, of
the sort one would see in negotiation.
Also, since the concession was for a referendum not the actual policy,
it isn't even a 100%
I defer to Walabio's point about Fair Votes as I know nothing about US
politics but I strongly suspect that they are currently getting a lot of
support from across the Atlantic.
You may have heard that in May the UK will have a referendum on introducing IRV
(we call it AV, as you probably
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Bob Crossley
bobc1ethel...@btinternet.com wrote:
(PS. I'd be interested in links to good research contesting the claimthat AV
makes tactical voting redundant - although I will vote Yes, I think the
false claims being made by the Yes camp are dangerous and
Thanks, that confirms my understanding.
The problem here in he UK is that in many seats we do have 3 big parties, and
in Scotland and Wales, where there are nationalist parties included also, there
are sometimes 4. (Northern Ireland has even more!) In these cases not voting
tactically under
Hi Bob,
--- En date de : Jeu 24.2.11, Bob Crossley bobc1ethel...@btinternet.com a
écrit :
The problem here in he UK is that in many seats we
do have 3 big parties, and in Scotland and Wales, where there are nationalist
parties included also, there are sometimes 4. (Northern Ireland has even
On Feb 24, 2011, at 9:43 PM, Kevin Venzke wrote:
I don't think IRV opponents will criticize that IRV is vulnerable to
strategic voting.
this opponent does. (quotes used because i voted to retain IRV in
Burlington VT last year.)
IRV did not eliminate the burden of strategic voting, but
There is a bit of research supporting that view which is quoted in the
Wikipedia piece John J. Bartholdi III, James B. Orlin (1991) Single
transferable vote resists strategic
voting,http://www.isye.gatech.edu/~jjb/papers/stv.pdf
I can't say my understanding of it is all that great, but it
Can anyone tell me the history? How did the wikipedia on IRV get
taken over by the proponents of IRV?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_runoff_voting
It is obvious with statements like Using ranked preference ballots,
any number of candidates can run without spoiling being a factor.
and
Can anyone tell me the history? How did the wikipedia on IRV get taken
over by the proponents of IRV?
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/instant_runoff_voting
This is simple:
FairVote has made it 1 of its objectives to control this article:
1 of the greatest
On Feb 23, 2011, at 3:40 PM, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ wrote:
Can anyone tell me the history? How did the wikipedia on IRV get
taken over by the proponents of IRV?
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/instant_runoff_voting
This is simple:
FairVote has made it 1 of its objectives to
14 matches
Mail list logo
