Subject:
|
Re: Instant Runoff Voting
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 9 Aug 2002 02:42:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
449 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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... :-)
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
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
