We didn't do any drive-by. We linked you to a veritable encyclopedia of information on voting methods -- RangeVoting.org It's objective, scientifically based data.
And no, it's not more complex than IRV, it's much simpler. It's simpler to use, and VASTLY easier to total.
Voters in San Francisco decided to use a modified form of IRV, because it was marketed well to them, and because they were so desperate for reform that they latched on to what was out there. FairVote beat us to the punch, and told a LOT of lies. They still tell lies all the time. They say that IRV only elects majority winners, and prevents strategy incentives, and prevents spoilers. All lies, and we've pointed it out to them numerous times, but they still do it over and over again.
http://rangevoting.org/Irvtalk.html
You might care to note that Oakland also recently voted to change from traditional runoffs to _instant_ runoff. This move was largely pushed by Greens and independents. Interestingly, IRV has led to two-party duopoly in EVERY country where it has been used on any scale: Ireland, Australia, Malta, Fiji. Yet 21-23 of the 27 countries that use traditional runoffs have broken free of two-party domination, and have healthy third parties that actually WIN. So Oakland's Greens were apparently suicidal. Well, they didn't mean to be, but they swallowed the IRV propaganda. I was living in San Francisco at the time, and tried to get the word out, but it was me against an army of progaganda and myth. We're like the round-earthers trying to get the message out, and no one wants to hear it. It's rather frustrating.
The voter satisfaction ratios of the various voting methods should more than suffice to prove to you that you will see ENORMOUS benefit by switching to Range Voting. Let me phrase it like this. Imagine if you picked the winner by just drawing a name out of a hat. Okay, sounds dumb right? Now imagine you go from that to IRV. Now you are getting more satisfaction with the winner. Now switch to Range Voting from IRV, and you get that same amount of satisfaction, all over again! Range Voting is about as big an improvement over IRV as IRV is over plurality.
Do you not like having an election method that picks the right winner?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: Missing the point
Date: 2007-01-23 05:15 am (UTC)And no, it's not more complex than IRV, it's much simpler. It's simpler to use, and VASTLY easier to total.
Voters in San Francisco decided to use a modified form of IRV, because it was marketed well to them, and because they were so desperate for reform that they latched on to what was out there. FairVote beat us to the punch, and told a LOT of lies. They still tell lies all the time. They say that IRV only elects majority winners, and prevents strategy incentives, and prevents spoilers. All lies, and we've pointed it out to them numerous times, but they still do it over and over again.
http://rangevoting.org/Irvtalk.html
You might care to note that Oakland also recently voted to change from traditional runoffs to _instant_ runoff. This move was largely pushed by Greens and independents. Interestingly, IRV has led to two-party duopoly in EVERY country where it has been used on any scale: Ireland, Australia, Malta, Fiji. Yet 21-23 of the 27 countries that use traditional runoffs have broken free of two-party domination, and have healthy third parties that actually WIN. So Oakland's Greens were apparently suicidal. Well, they didn't mean to be, but they swallowed the IRV propaganda. I was living in San Francisco at the time, and tried to get the word out, but it was me against an army of progaganda and myth. We're like the round-earthers trying to get the message out, and no one wants to hear it. It's rather frustrating.
The voter satisfaction ratios of the various voting methods should more than suffice to prove to you that you will see ENORMOUS benefit by switching to Range Voting. Let me phrase it like this. Imagine if you picked the winner by just drawing a name out of a hat. Okay, sounds dumb right? Now imagine you go from that to IRV. Now you are getting more satisfaction with the winner. Now switch to Range Voting from IRV, and you get that same amount of satisfaction, all over again! Range Voting is about as big an improvement over IRV as IRV is over plurality.
Do you not like having an election method that picks the right winner?