Subject:
|
Re: Instant Runoff Voting
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 8 Aug 2002 11:45:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
346 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jude Beaudin writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > See
> > > http://www.AlaskansforVotersRights.com/
> > > for more info on a ballot proposal on the Alaska Primary that will do much
> > > to give people more choice at less expense. The Alaska LP supports this
> > > which is how I heard about it.
> > >
> > > Instant Runoff means that when you vote you also give second, third, etc
> > > choices so if there is no clear winner in the first round, some candidates
> > > are eliminated and the ballots cast for them are reevaluated for second,
> > > third, etc choices to see if a majority is now achieved.
> > >
> > > This is believed to defuse the "wasted vote" charge (to a certain extent)
> > > that dogs minor parties in the US.
> >
> > In a perfect world it would work. But I doubt people would not readily
> > accept that type of voting because you have to think of how you fill out the
> > ballot.
>
> Yes, perish the thought, voters actually being asked to think! Grin.
>
> > Also, you still end up with situations of people purposely spoiling
> > ballots, i.e. picking the same candidate for all choices.
>
> That's a spoiled ballot anyway, no different than now.
Surely it is actually still a vote until that candidate is chucked out. It
is no different to only writing in the first choice and leaving the rest blank.
This method is the way my University (and I think all UK Universities) elect
Sabbatical officers to run the Students' Union. If no-one gets a majority
the person with the least votes drops out and their votes are redistributed.
In the case above if that person was no longer in the race the votes in the
next boxes are irrelevant, if he remains in the race it's the first choice
vote that is counted. The only second choices considered are of those who
voted for the candidate placed last in the first round.
In these elections it is perfectly permissible just to vote for your first
choice. I think that's a wasted opportunity but people can do it if they
are lazy.
I wonder if this method has always been used or if, at some time in the
past, it changed from a first past the post system. If so there might be
some interesting data on how many voted before and after the change to see
if it really does discourage voting.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Instant Runoff Voting
|
| (...) I would tend to agree.... the only way I would say the ballot would be spoiled would be if it was not clear what was intended. If I voted 1-A, 2-B and 3-A (again) that might be argued to be ambiguous. (or might not) To Ross, I'm not sure (...) (22 years ago, 9-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
