1. So if approved, we should expect the repeal vote around 2015?

   Kudos though to the article’s author, for using the more-correct “mitigates” when referring to the ‘spoiler’ effect, instead of the commonly-cited-but-false “eliminates.”

2. “So if approved, we should expect the repeal vote around 2015?”

   Yep. Complete with all of the disingenuous howling from plurality supporters about how IRV is not absolutely 100% super-dee-looper perfect, so therefore it’s worth garbage. IRV will not be compared to the old status quo, but rather to some non-existent Utopian voting system. The old status quo will not be compared to anything, but will float out there in some vague, disembodied way until the election is over and it becomes law again.

3. Fort Collins has held 28 office elections since 1997, a mayoral and 3 city-council district races in each of the 7 biennial elections.

   15 of the elections had 2 candidates, and one had only a single candidate.

   There were 9 3-candidate races, 6 of which had a majority winner. In the 3-candidate races where there was not a majority winner, then 3rd candidate voters would have had to split by very large margins to change the result. If we assume 10% of the 3rd-candidate voters would not express a 2nd preference, then 3rd-candidate voters would have had to had to split 93:7; 74:26; and 99:1 to change the result.

   There were 2 4-candidate races, both of which had plurality winners. If we assume 15% of the 3rd-candidate and 4th-candidate voters would not have expressed a preference for either of the top 2, then the split would have have to be 79:21 and 72:28 to overcome the 1st place leader.

   There was one 6-candidate race, which had 4 strong candidates, and the leading candidate was elected with 29% of the vote (he was re-elected 2 years later with 87% of the vote against the 6th place candidate from ). If 3-column IRV had been used in that election, then the result would likely be random based on which voters bothered to express additional preferences.

   So 22 of 28 elections had a majority winner, 5 of the other 6 races were not particularly close, and would have required an overwhelming split of votes from the trailing candidates.

   That leaves one election where it would have been much simpler to hold a conventional runoff where voters could have a second chance to examine the candidates, perhaps consider endorsements from the candidates who were eliminated, and vote.

4. IRV = THE method to elect Stalin/Hitler clones when the 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 wins a mighty majority mandate from Hell — 50-49.

   Gee – Has the U.S.A. been a bit left/right divided since 2000 ??? Duh.

   P.R. and App.V.

5. One hundred years of “instant runoff” aka “preferential voting” in the Australian House of Representatives has only produced the same kind of two-party domination seen
   with first past the post. IRV makes no sense, but it has some funding (Soros?) and a small group of people whose jobs are dependent on its promotion.

6. #5 The EVIL Cons-LibDems coalition in the U.K. regime will be having a referendum on 5 May 2011 on having IRV to elect the U.K. House of Commons.

   Not sure who is more stupid — the defenders of plurality (first past the post in the U.K.) or supporters of IRV (Alternative Vote in the U.K.).

   History and math means nothing to history and math party hack MORONS in ALL regimes.

   P.R. and App.V.

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