I think Chuck Repke's points re IRV are well taken. However, electing people with less than a majority of the votes cast is also a problem. Instead of IRV why not not just go to a simple runoff system. If no-one gets a majority of votes cast, then go to a run-off election between the top two candidates two weeks (or 30 days maybe) after the first election. There might be some expense involved but I, for one, think it would be worth it.
Charlie Swope Ward 1 --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 8/4/2004 2:53:37 PM Central > Daylight Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > 1) That IRV is a confusing and convoluted system > of voting. > > 2) That our current system is less confusing - > when a voting for > > Ralph Nader is the same as voting for George Bush. > > > > I could just as easily argue that our current > system of voting is > > convoluted and has been proven to send people away > from the polls. > > After all, why should people even bother to vote, > when their > > candidate has been declared dead and their votes > declared "wasted" > > months ahead of the actual election. Its pretty > clear, from the Nada > > No, the current system is pretty simple you vote for > one person that you want > to be, President, or Senator, or Council Member. As > I said this isn't a > parlor game - you don't get vote a protest vote and > then get a second option for > who you really think should run the country. You > actually have to make a real > decision and live with it. It is about running the > government not what > stimulates your intellectual curiosity - "I wonder > what would happen if everybody's > first vote didn't really count, do you think my guy > would win then?" > > IRV would never give me a second vote. I have no > interest in candidates that > pop up on the third party flavor of the month and > then disappear into > obscurity. I wouldn't put a second choice down, I > actually vote for the person that > I think is best qualified for the office. I > wouldn't want Nader to be > president! He is an egomaniac, what else is driving > him for Pete's sake. > > Back to Saint Paul - the last hotly contested > elections for City Council. > There would be only one election with multiple > candidates, no time for the voter > to focus on the remaining two after a primary. No > chance for candidates to > do direct compare and contrast. Only the one shot > and then those who vote for > the bottom candidates get first shot at determining > where their second votes > go. So, back to my beloved ward 2 - the first votes > that get highest priority, > the ones that get counted over first, are the > brilliant people who voted for > Bill Dahn and Sharon Scarrella Anderson. They > decide the fate of the > election! We reopen the ballots of those folks and > spread them around and see where > they go! > > Help me, your killing me! > > An exercise in democracy, sure, but not much of a > way to select someone to > run the City or the Country. > > Just My Opinion Not Those Of My Employers Past > Present Or Future > > Chuck (I always thought an exercise in democracy was > door knocking) Repke > _____________________________________________ > To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _____________________________________________ > NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your > password - visit: > http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul > > Archive Address: > http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/ > _____________________________________________ To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
