At 8:07 AM -0700 7/27/06, Jonathan Lundell wrote: >At 3:09 AM -0400 7/27/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>Btw, is the new law equivalent to the old run-off rules ? Would there >>be no 2nd election if the winner of the first round got more than 40% >>? Maybe, they were just trying to keep the law consistant ? > >Yes, that appears to be the case. They've basically collapsed their >existing runoff system into a single election.
I meant to add: and that's fine with me; I just wish they hadn't called it IRV. But that's the problem with "IRV" as a name for single-winner STV: NC's method is "instant", and it's a "runoff", but that's not the central point of single-winner STV, just a side benefit. -- /Jonathan Lundell. ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info