Ummmm.... I have just one thing to say.... Single Transferable Voting or STV is one of the many numerous forms of IRV that would resolve your concerns listed here.
David Strand Loring Park --- David Hauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jeanne Massey wrote: > > Paul Rohlfing asks: > > > > How does this year's turnout percentage compare to > the 1997 primary? > > > > Jeanne Massey replies: > > > > An abysmal 18% in 1997, though higher than > yesterday. The dysfunction > > (i.e., poor voter turnout) of our two-round > (primary-general) election begs > > for a change in how we elect our local officials. > Instant Runoff Voting > > (IRV) accomplishes what two-round elections are > intended to accomplish - a > > winner with majority support - in just one > election. It's cheaper, far more > > convenient than traditional runoff elections and > increases voter > > participation in electing our local officials. The > IRV train is leaving the > > station and cities and states across the country > are climbing aboard. San > > Francisco successfully implemented it last > November for municipal elections > > and several other cities and states have approved > or are considering > > conversion as well. Minneapolis should be on this > train. > > > > I think this discussion of IRV needs some > enlightening. Let me help you out: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting > > For those not wanting to read a whole lot of > political/voting stuff > (blasphemer!), sometimes IRV is pitched as the next > best thing in voting, yet it > is not that simple. The biggest flaw with IRV is its > susceptibility to > monotonicity; you can strategerize (sic: bushism) > the ballots by voting for your > third pick first instead of third and therefore the > real first might end up > second and your candidate, the real second, might > end up first. Confused yet? > Let me quote the juicy bits: > > "IRV is unusual in that it fails the monotonicity > criterion. The implication of > this is that it is vulnerable to the "push-over" > strategy. Tactical voters can > benefit by raising "push-overs" (candidates unlikely > to win) above their real > favorite, causing a stronger opponent to their > favorite to be eliminated early, > leaving only the push-over to contend with their > favorite in the last round. > > This strategy typically requires a great deal of > coordination, and typically > entails a substantial risk of backfire. Thus, some > argue that IRV's > vulnerability to the strategy will rarely or never > manifest in practice." > > Like it says, the possibility of this is indeed > small, but with Diebold running > things at the voting booth these days one might do > well to be suspicious of > subscribing to the new whiz-bang. Forgive me for my > caution, but I am a computer > geek and electronic voting scares the pants off of > me. I would much rather spend > a few extra days counting paper ballots that may > have been stuffed than give a > corporation the opportunity to affect national > elections en masse. But I digress... > > That (digression) being said, all the voting > systems, theoretical or in > practice, have flaws. I personally believe that IRV > is better than the current > plurality system we use today. However, I feel that > people would need to be > educated thoroughly about any new system (heck, are > they even educated about the > electoral college any more?) just because it is > different than what everyone is > used to. IRV is not simple, nor is it a cure-all. > Any attempt to boil it down to > quaint alliteration and meat-less arguments does it > no justice. IRV is a worthy > system, please do it justice by presenting it as > such. > > A complete synopsis of voting, including a listing > of (and very thorough > dissection of) major voting systems: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system > > David Hauser > Logan > > > Jeanne Massey > > Kingfield > > > > > > REMINDERS: > > 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at > http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a > member is in violation, contact the list manager at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. > > > > 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious > flame-bait. > > > > For state and national discussions see: > http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html > > For external forums, see: > http://e-democracy.org/mninteract > > ________________________________ > > > > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused > Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy > > Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org > > Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: > http://e-democracy.org/mpls > > > > > > REMINDERS: > 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at > http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a > member is in violation, contact the list manager at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. > > 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. > > For state and national discussions see: > http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html > For external forums, see: > http://e-democracy.org/mninteract > ________________________________ > > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused > Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy > Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org > Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: > http://e-democracy.org/mpls > ______________________________________________________ Yahoo! for Good Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
