1. I thought that the precision in which this article was written was very bad. Take this as an example:

   “That is one of the ironies of IRV that some opponents criticize. The candidate who has the majority of first-choice votes doesn’t always win. ”

   It seems that the author doesn’t distinguish a “majority” which is really 50%+1 of the votes, from a “plurality” which is the person with the most votes (which is under 50% of the votes in a multicandidate field).

   It is absolutely one of the tenants of IRV that a candidate with a majority of the first round votes is always the winner.

2. The article also has the standard critiques of IRV that apply equally to Long Beach’s current runoff system as if they are something new. That’s due to the FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) that some opponents of IRV are throwing these days — including this prankster Terry Reily, who is defending traditional runoffs in San Jose even while critiquing IRV for exactly the same features that those runoffs have.

3. Well, people will need to get more educated about the facts and people will need to be on hand to challenge ignorant or inaccurate statements about a particular voting method or election law.

   Join My Mafia: http://apps.facebook.com/inthemafia/status_invite.php?from=163902976

4. Like the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, you can count on the same suspects negatively commenting on every article regarding IRV / RCV. This piece was exceptional because it actually featured a couple from the FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) crowd.

   I’m proud to be working with FairVote because we see the problem with uncontested and uncompetitive races and are trying to do something about it. Look at the US House or your own state legislature? We can write pages of critiques but instead there are efforts to bring change.

   It’s easy for the FUD crowd to jump from blog to blog pushing fear, uncertainty and doubt. But think about the premise of their efforts – they’re saying that the current state of democracy is the best we’re going to get.

   Here’s what’s really compelling the FUD’s – they think IRV / RCV is another conspiracy to steal elections.

5. Sorry IRV is NOT the greatest invention since sliced bread.

   IRV is EVIL MORONIC since it ignores most of the data in a place votes table.

   How often will Stalin and Hitler clones be in the final top 2 using IRV (when the moderate middle is divided in rough and tough times) ??? — with the Hitler / Stalin winner(s) claiming a mighty majority mandate via IRV to do TOTAL EVIL.

   Spare me and this list any MORON comments from any MATH MORON IRV FANATICS.

   34 HWS
   33 SWH
   16 WHS
   16 WSH
   99

   H Hitler clone
   S Stalin clone
   W Washington, George clone

   Sorry George W. fans — with IRV you lose — despite having a Place Votes Table of —

   1 2 3

   H 34 16 49
   S 33 16 50
   W 32 67 0

   IRV ignores the mere 67 votes for Washington in second place — getting Washington 100 percent of the votes for 1st plus 2nd.

   The Supreme Court stands ready to make a judgment on IRV for single offices — especially with the EQUAL Protection Clause in the 14th Amdt.

6. Turnout for the runoffs in Long Beach is always substantially higher than the primary. This is even true when the mayoral race was decided in the primary, and there were only runoffs for city council in a few districts, or for down ballot races.

   One of the special city council elections they cited, the city also conducted a city-wide referendum on a couple of propositions. Surely the cost of that election was for the referendum, and the special election for city council in one district was virtually free.

   Guatum Dutta is quoted in the article as claiming that IRV stimulates more candidates to run, and then turns right around and argues that the board of supervisors election in San Francisco with 22 candidates in which NO CANDIDATE was ranked by even half the voters was what would happen in a conventional runoff when supporters of minor candidates were forced to choose between two major party candidates. But in San Francisco voters who use up their 3 preferences have their ballot discarded. So you can vote one sincere preference, and then you better start trying to figure out who the top 2 candidates will be. Under a conventional runoff, at least you know who the two finalists will be.

   In Australia, you are not only permitted to rank all candidates, you are required to do so. In San Francisco not only aren’t you required to rank all candidates, you are not permitted to do so.

7. #4 You should support Top 2. There were many more candidates from which ALL voters could choose from among running for the legislature in 2008 vs. in 2006 in your State of Washington.

8. People who hate IRV hate democracy.

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