On May 31, 2004, at 6:47 PM, Dr.Ernie Prabhakar wrote:
One of my favorite columnists, Dan Walters, is talking about a new
approach to California's politicized, gerrymandered primaries:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/politics/columns/walters/story/9490344p
-10414306c.html
The new plan would
On Jun 1, 2004, at 8:38 AM, Brian Olson wrote:
On May 31, 2004, at 6:47 PM, Dr.Ernie Prabhakar wrote:
The justification for multiple rounds, I suspect, is that primary
campaigns will still tend to be lower-profile, and more sectarian,
compared to the fall general election.
At any rate, it is
Regarding California/French Runoff:
Yes, this is the part that makes is difficult to make an
apples-to-apples comparison with IRV. I agree.
On Jun 1, 2004, at 11:54 AM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:
... people participate in general elections than in primaries.
So, I guess I would qualify as
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:
I agree that Plurality in the first round suffers from all the same
problems as Plurality in the final election. So, my question is -- if
people *want* a two-round system, what is the most efficient election
method to use? I think Ranked
Hi all,
On Jun 1, 2004, at 3:38 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
Recent French elections demonstrated need for something better than
Plurality plus rerun. I believe they also demonstrated that IRV does
not cut it - IRV too easily locks out acceptable candidates when
minorities each rate a few minor
Sure, that's the old Runoff method. Runoff is a big improvement over
Plurality, and Runoff guarantees that a CW will win if s/he comes in 1st or
2nd in the initial Plurality count.
Of course we could do better than Runoff. Approval with one balloting would
be better.
But of course there are
