> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] org
> Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 13:43:27 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: Re: [EM] Pseudo-election reform in California
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:
> > I agree that Plurality in the first round suffers from all the same
> > problems a
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 lo
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 c
Long ago, Plurality was the practical election method.
Parties got in the act, and realized that it was destructive to have
multiple candidates from one party dividing up their votes while the other
party might be more unified - so parties nominated single candidates.
A hundred years ago primari
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 Ba
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 saying
Hi Curt,
On Jun 1, 2004, at 11:43 AM, Curt Siffert wrote:
It seems clear to me that this would be worse than IRV. IRV and this
"French/Louisiana Runoff" method are identical in that there is a
second round if there is no majority.
IRV then removes the last-place candidate. So does French Runof
It seems clear to me that this would be worse than IRV. IRV and this
"French/Louisiana Runoff" method are identical in that there is a
second round if there is no majority.
IRV then removes the last-place candidate. So does French Runoff,
except that French Runoff also removes several others;
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 f
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 hav
I said:
> There was (supposedly) no way that Duke would have
> won a 2-way GOP primary against the other Republican
If Duke was one of the top 2 then that statement cannot be correct. There
must have been more than 2 Republican candidates in that primary.
Election-methods mailing list - se
I believe that Nebraska and Louisiana use this method, although Nebraska
explicitly eliminates party labels. Neither state is a hot-bed of 3rd
party activity, suggesting that the method does little if anything to open
the system to more competing options.
(Yes, yes, I know, some on this list will
Hi all,
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 have all candidates for office run on one ballot. If
13 matches
Mail list logo
