[Winona Online Democracy]
As I noted, the tactics can be very similar to those under the current
system. Possibly neither the �Instant-runoff voting� piece nor my summary of
part of it was entirely clear, however.
Both assumed different votes within different areas or precincts when
more than two candidates ran. Choosing second place rather than first place
within a particular district or precinct can be useful if that district�s voters
outside your bloc overwhelmingly prefer another candidate (thus reducing your
bloc�s first-place votes to insignificance) but agree than your candidate is a
good second choice. This situation presupposes the inclusion of more than one
district as a basis for votes, as well as different degrees of popularity among
candidates in each district and a first-place showing for your candidate within
at least one voting area.
It is surprising how different interpretations have been made of
the results of IRV, even by voting experts (see �External Links� in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting ).
I believe the IRV system is better than the current one when more than
two candidates are running. I'd like to see it tried here, even though the first
attempt might produce some technical problems, including a delayed final tally,
as it did in San Francisco.
Roy Nasstrom
While the "Compromise" examples suggest a block of
voters could (for whatever reason) rank a second or third preference higher than
their actual first preference, the tactic is effective only if these voters have
already given up on their first preference (essentially making the second choice
the NEW first choice). It is no different than Nader supporters
sensing a losing battle and choosing to cast their non-IRV votes for Gore (or
whomever).
There is no discernible advantage, however, to
listing a preferred candidate "lower." (Perhaps we are defining "higher"
and "lower" differently. I've been using "higher" to mean more preferable,
though I imagine the actual ranking number actually gets "lower" as the rank
moves closer to #1.)
-Spencer
|
_______________________________________________
This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy
All messages must be signed by the senders actual name.
No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list.
To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit
http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona
Any problems or suggestions can be directed to
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page at
http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org
