Portland, Maine’s daily newspaper, the Press-Herald, has this editorial about Instant Runoff Voting, which the city used for the first time this past week.
Portland, Maine’s daily newspaper, the Press-Herald, has this editorial about Instant Runoff Voting, which the city used for the first time this past week.
We need this nationwide. Big fan of IRV.
Lemming disease — mass delusions.
IRV for single offices = THE method to elect Stalin/Hitler clones when the Middle is Divided — i.e. NOT the greatest thing since sliced bread.
34 S–M–H
33 H–M–S
16 M–S–H
16 M–H–S
99
With IRV, M loses.
S beats H 50-49 Let the Civil War start.
Condorcet head to head math
M beats S 65-34
M beats H 66-33
—-
Pending Condorcet head to head math for ALL elections –
P.R. for ALL legislative body elections.
——–
Nonpartisan Approval Voting for executive/judicial offices.
IF no App.V. majority winner, then possibly declare a vacancy to be filled by law or the legislative body involved.
Waiting for the now standard MORON IRV defense responses.
I have no idea what you’re even talking about. Try typing actual sentences rather than just fragments and statistics that make sense to you and nobody else.
Turnout was less than the last municipal election in 2009. The voting counting was hardly transparent. The city website has only the first round, and the city is apparently now dependent on a single-source vendor for conducting their mayoral elections.
This is the only detail I have found (which is not even a Portland newspaper).
http://media.kjonline.com/documents/RankedChoice1.pdf
#3 Comments must be short in the current state of W-A-R for REAL Democracy against the many EVIL ANTI-Democracy gerrymander monarchs / oligarchs in the U.S.A.
NOT enough time to re-write the 1776 DOI and the 1787-1788 Federalist.
More Stone Age math –
201 is more than 102 — directly but NOT with gerrymander systems.
1. 51 A — 50 B
2. 51 A — 50 B
3. 0 A — 101 B
———————
Tot 102 A — 201 B
The 102 indirectly control the 201.
Larger gerrymanders —
1/2 votes x 1/2 districts = 1/4 CONTROL.
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
#4, Portland residents are very satisfied with the method. The 2009 municipal election was an historic vote on same sex marriage in a major gay hub. If you compare it to voter turnout to other off-year elections in 2005 and 2007, the turnout was double.
#5
Except that I can’t understand any of your gibberish. I’m done with you. This isn’t even a debate at this point, because you can’t even form a coherent thought.
#6 The editorial claimed that “turnout” was sky high compare to off year elections. If you compare it to other city elections there was no mayoral election. If there had been a mayoral election with a conventional runoff, I suspect turnout would have been as high, and probably as high for the runoff.
If there had not been a mayoral election this year, there would have been two city council elections, one with two candidates, and one with one candidate, and two unopposed school board elections.
The city elections officials have done an abysmal job of presenting the results of the election. Are they very satisfied with that? The winning candidate did not have the support of the majority of the persons who went to the polls.
The city is apparently now stuck with a single-source vendor who they will have to hire every four years to conduct their mayoral election. I would expect even election officials in Maine could conduct a runoff election.
IRV is for single winner districts which favors the two biggest parties. Single winner districts also attract egotists, because one winner must portray themselves as better than everyone. Plus it guarantees there will be no gender balance, and that’s the real issue in politics. The fair representation of women.
If you want to read about ranked choice voting in multi-winner districts of two or more known as the Sainte-Lague parliament seat distribution system, the please click on my campaign page for US president. The 8th USA Parliament is now in its sixteenth year, five presidential cycles.
Honorable Harry Browne (RIP) [Libertarian] won our first ballot in 1995, and Noam Chomsky [New] and Colin Powell [Independent] came in 2nd and 3rd.
We then went to a 100-member district, and in 2012, we’re going to a 1000-member district.
Hope you like it!
–James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
Go Ogle 2012
http://usparliament.org/google2012.php
“Why do you THINK they called it Google?”
Join the Frees,
Opposite gender #1!
@1 Jed, I’ve signed up to your twitter page, and I’ll be following your campaign.
BTW, you say you’re a big fan of IRV, but did you know that single winner districts elect mostly mean males who tend to chase women away with their behavior? By electing two candidates, then gender balance is mathematically guaranteed when 2/3rds of the voters alternate genders as #1 and #2. (i.e. prez/vp, gov/lt gov., chair/vice chair, etc.)
When IRV is used as two single winner districts, then mathematically gender balanced is not guaranteed.
I can prove that when 50% plus one elects single winners one at a time, then gender balance can lose even when 2/3rds preferred gender balance (i.e. one male and one female, or visa versa).
Pending that my comments are not deleted, I welcome the chance to explain in better detail if you don’t understand why IRV is no good.
If my comments are deleted as is often the case on this website, I’ll contact you via twitter to find out if you’re interested in more information.
Best,
–James
Join the Frees,
Opposite gender #1!
PS To find out more about my campaign, search for my website Go Ogle 2012 or click on the link below:
http://usparliament.org/google2012.php
IRV can only “work” in places like SF and Portland where virtually everyone subscribes to the same narrow ideology.
Meaning you could select the officeholders by throws of dice and still get essentially the same result.
A lot of typically nutty comments on what is really a straightforward issue. Note:
* Of course instant runoff voting can work in places with diverse ideologies. It has a long history of doing so, including national elections in Australia and Ireland and city elections in London, Wellington (New Zealand)and more.
* Proportional voting is clearly more representative for legislative elections. But when using a winner-take-all system, instant runoff voting is clearly fairer and more democratic than plurality voting when more than two candidates run.
* Runoffs are another way to handle choice. But reducing all but two candidates in one fell swoop has its own problems, as does the typical lower turnout in one of the rounds and the increased impact of money. Every system has tradeoffs, but some opponents of IRV are rather crazed in their opposition to it.
Read the editorial again. The paper was against IRV being put in the charter. But it was able to see the reality of the system as it happened.
Pingback: Portland, Maine Press-Herald Editorial Lauds Instant Runoff Voting | ThirdPartyPolitics.us
Regardless of the New Age hype MORONS about IRV math for single offices —
50 A > 49 Z
A and Z are both extremists.
Along comes M the Moderate.
ONE of the 50 A voters has a brain change moment.
All 49 of Z voters would prefer the Moderate over the extremist A.
1 M > A > Z
49 A > M > Z
49 Z > M > A
50 M beat 49 A
50 M beat 49 Z
Gee — the Moderate beats both of the extremists using CONDORCET head to head math.
Of course, the IRV math MORONS do NOT care in the slightest about Condorcet math — i.e. are as crazy EVIL/STUPID fanatics as any bunch of fanatics in world history —
See the Christian v. Muslim fanatics in the horrific Crusades during the DARK AGE.
See the Catholics v. Protestants in the horrific 30 Years War in 1618-1649 — causing many American colonies to get formed to escape the lunatics in Europe.
IRV does NOT treat ALL 2nd choice votes, 3rd choice votes, etc. as being EQUAL
— but of course IRV FANATICS do not care in the slightest about equal votes math — since they are IGNORANT brainwashed math MORONS.
#12 San Francisco mayoral election:
1st Round 2003: 208,008
1st Round 2011: 184,854 (down 11%)
2nd Round 2003: 252,875
2nd Round 2011: 134,391 (down 47%).
Change 2003: +22%
Change 2007: -27%
#12
Ed Lee received 32% fewer votes than Matt Gonzalez in 2003.