San Francisco Chronicle Carries Defense of Instant Runoff Voting by Two Political Scientists

The January 22 San Francisco Chronicle has this essay by two California political scientists, Richard DeLeon and Arend Lijphart. They analyze San Francisco’s Instant Runoff experience and conclude that it has worked well. Thanks to Steve Hill for the link.


Comments

San Francisco Chronicle Carries Defense of Instant Runoff Voting by Two Political Scientists — No Comments

  1. More brainwashing stuff — by math MORONS — working for the usual suspects.

    IRV for single offices = THE method to elect Stalin/Hitler clones when the mystified middle is divided.
    —-
    34 S–M–H
    33 H–M–S
    16 M–S–H
    16 M–H–S
    99

    With IRV —
    M loses
    S beats H by a giant 50-49 *mandate* from Hell.

    Gee- Who has a mere 99 of 99 votes in 1st + 2nd place votes ???

    Gee- Who beats the other 2 Head to Head ???
    —-
    P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
    pending MAJOR education about Head to Head math.

  2. Would Norman Yee have been elected but for the massive number of ballots that were discarded?

  3. Jim — Yee won with far more votes than either candidate would have won in a December runoff. Furthermore, the electorate would have been far less representative in a range of ways relating to things like age and income.

  4. The “people of color” fetishism is retarded. As if there is no concern what’s in someone’s head, only with the color of his/her epidermis.

  5. #3 Rob, you didn’t answer my question.

    The second sentence simply indicates that intelligence and civic involvement are positively correlated with age and income.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *