1. How many more decades will BAN bring info. about failed IRV systems that pretty much guarantee a one-party system where only candidates garnering 50% plus one vote will always win?

   The only voting system that is supported by all parties and independents is pure proportional representation.

   The United Coalition has been using pure proportional representation for more than twenty-two consecutive years and it works fine.

   http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc.html

2. A “system where only candidates garnering 50% plus one will always win.”?? That’s got to be better than 46%!

3. Walt, no that isn’t better, because the split vote problems with plurality systems allows random wins by opposition minorities.

   It is better to have random wins for minority groups, better than guaranteed no wins, under RCV in single-winner districts, because people like that unpredictable outcome for taking turns.

4. SAN FRANCISCO VERSION RCV

   http://sfgov.org/elections/marking-your-ballot

   Ranked-Choice Voting [CLICK OPEN]

   LIMIT 3 CHOICES

5. Ballot Access News, Free and Equal, and FairVote have all been wrong for more than twenty-two consecutive years.

   SF’s RCV system has cemented a one-party system, it’s winner-takes-all there and in Oakland, Democrats like it and the SF Chronicle is uninterested in the truth.

   The United Coalition has been using pure proportional representation for more than twenty-two consecutive years and it works fine.

6. One more *extreme* FATAL example of RCV math —

   49 A–M–Z
   1 M–A–Z
   49 Z–M–A
   99

   Place Votes Table
   —1–2–3–T

   A–49–1–49–99
   M–1–98–0–99
   Z–49–0–50–99
   T–99–99–99–297

   The clueless RCV/IRV math M-O-R-O-N-S love to ignore the mere 98 votes for M in 2nd place.

   Head to Head (Condorcet) —

   M beats A 50-49
   M beats Z 50-49

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.