Subject:
|
Re: Instant Runoff Voting
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 9 Aug 2002 02:25:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
355 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Simon Bennett writes:
> 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.
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 exactly what the differences are, they soundes similar
to me. I have heard proposals to use "Australian rules voting" in the past,
perhaps this bunch didn't want to have that connotation? Dunno why that
would be... :-)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Instant Runoff Voting
|
| (...) Ummm, I guess that would be the "give all the ones you dont want in a good hip & shoulders" voting system 8?) Didn't they use a variant of that technique in chicago many years ago? ROSCO (22 years ago, 9-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Instant Runoff Voting
|
| (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 8-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
