The April 24 issue of the Boston Globe has this op-ed, in favor of Instant-Runoff Voting. The piece is by Adam Friedman, of Citizens for Voter Choice, the Massachusetts organization that works for IRV.
The op-ed makes reference to a special primary election held on April 13, to choose the Democratic Party nominee in a special election to be held May 11. Massachusetts State Senate districts don’t have district numbers; they have names. This particular district is the “Middlesex, Suffolk & Essex District”, and it is vacant because the State Senator elected to that seat in 2008 resigned early this year.
Growing numbers of IRV math MORONS — unable to detect that IRV WILL elect Stalin/Hitler clones when the *middle* is divided.
IRV ignores most of the data in a Place Votes Table.
It only takes ONE IRV election in the WRONG place and time for things to happen — see the APPOINTMENT of Hitler in Jan. 1933 by the senile Prez Hindenburg in Germany.
Result – about 70 million DEAD folks in 1933-1945 in the world — and the resulting New Age of nonstop private and public terror.
P.R. and A.V.
1. No voting method is perfect. However, IRV keeps the two-party system and reduces the need for a second run off election and reduces the risk in a close election of spoilage.
2. Germany did not use an Instant Runoff Voting method in 1933. They did some a form of proportional representation, which probably did some damage to the Nazi Party; they were actually losing seats when the Parliament was burnt. The rise of facism in Europe is a bit more complicated then a vothing method.
The Op-Ed had a number of inaccuracies. The top two candidates had 37.2% and 36.0% of the vote. The winner had 75% of the vote cast in Everett, his vote in Everett was only 61% of his total vote. Turnout was really dismal, the winner managed to get a little less dismal turnout in his strongest town.
If Massachusetts used a Top 2 Open Primary, then the two candidates who had 75% of the support would have faced off in the general election, plus all voters would have been allowed to vote.
1. No voting method is perfect. However, IRV keeps the two-party system and reduces the need for a second run off election and reduces the risk in a close election of spoilage.
2. Germany did not use an Instant Runoff Voting method in 1933. They did some a form of proportional representation, which probably did some damage to the Nazi Party; they were actually losing seats when the Parliament was burnt. The rise of facism in Europe is a bit more complicated then a vothing method.
The Op-Ed had a number of inaccuracies. The top two candidates had 37.2% and 36.0% of the vote. The winner had 75% of the vote cast in Everett, his vote in Everett was only 61% of his total vote. Turnout was really dismal, the winner managed to get a little less dismal turnout in his strongest town.
If Massachusetts used a Top 2 Open Primary, then the two candidates who had 75% of the support would have faced off in the general election, plus all voters would have been allowed to vote.
Growing numbers of IRV math MORONS — unable to detect that IRV WILL elect Stalin/Hitler clones when the *middle* is divided.
IRV ignores most of the data in a Place Votes Table.
It only takes ONE IRV election in the WRONG place and time for things to happen — see the APPOINTMENT of Hitler in Jan. 1933 by the senile Prez Hindenburg in Germany.
Result – about 70 million DEAD folks in 1933-1945 in the world — and the resulting New Age of nonstop private and public terror.
P.R. and A.V.
The op ed piece blurs the lines between primary and general elections. The lack of competitive elections Friedman mentions applies to general elections, including the one in question. Primaries for open seats are always extremely competitive. If the Democrats want to adopt IRV for their primaries, they are free to do so — but if we want to make Mass. legislative elections more competitive, we need to get other parties to nominate more candidates.