Here I talk of moving up from FPP to Range or Condorcet. I do not get
into other single-winner elections or into multi-winner elections -
while such deserve considering, they distract from my primary goal,
which is to promote moving upward without getting buried in details.
Voters should see advantages in moving up to a better method.
To vote for one, as in FPP:
. In Range, assign your choice a maximum rating.
. In Condorcet, simply rank your choice.
Voting for two is using more power than FPP offers. Often there is a
major pair of candidates for which you prefer one, and one other that
you also want to vote for: For your second choice you could give the
same rank or rating, or lower:
. In Range you assign first choice maximum rating. Unrated share
minimum. The farther you rate second below max, the stronger your
vote for max over second. BUT, the nearer you rate second to unrated,
the weaker you rate second over unrated.
. In Condorcet, rank your first choice higher than your second.
Voting for more is doable:
. In Range your difference in rating between any two is how much
you prefer the higher over the lower, and the sum of these differences
decides which wins their race.
. In Condorcet they count how many rank A>B vs how many rank B>A.
Politicians may hesitate in moving up to more powerful methods. Range
or Condorcet can cost more, but getting a truer reading as to voter
choices can be worth the pain.
Dave Ketchum
On Aug 4, 2011, at 3:20 AM, bob wrote:
--- In rangevot...@yahoogroups.com, "thenewthirdparty"
<thenewthirdparty@...> wrote:
Guys and Gals,
I now see Range Voting as a very important component to getting
third parties elected. But I don't see how the Range Voting group
will ever change the minds of the public in order for it to be a
reality. Does someone have thoughts on how to get your Range
Voting plan voted into action? I would like to hear how Range
Voting moves beyond more than just a good idea.
I think we need to start a PAC or even maybe a party that has the
sole objective of getting rid of plurality voting. We need to be
able to communicate that competitive elections in which there is no
vote splitting is the most important thing we can do to hold
politicians accountable. We also need to be willing to vote for
candidates who support getting rid of plurality regardless of what
other positions that candidate holds. We need to communicate that
once we get over this hump, we will no longer have to worry about
having to vote for the lesser of two evils ever again.
Another thing we can do is email and tweet news hosts like Rachael
Maddow and ask them to do a segment on different voting systems. If
we organize to tweet pundits at the same time, maybe they'll get the
message.
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
