Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

A conversation with an English woman about IRV

Expand Messages
  • ⸘Ŭalabio‽
    ¡Hello! ¿How fare you? An English woman came into my work today. This is very unusual. I brought up the coming referendum she will miss. She had no
    Message 1 of 3 , May 3, 2011
      ¡Hello!

      ¿How fare you?

      An English woman came into my work today. This is very unusual. I brought up the coming referendum she will miss. She had no opinion. I explained that IRV which the English call AV for some crazy reason even though AV is approval voting is a false reform. She gave me a blank stare.

      Then I brought up that with the new ballots would support Condorcet, which is better than what she call alternative vote. She had no idea what Condorcet is. I brought up that the old ballots support the real A V, approval voting which easily beats Plurality and IRV. She had know idea what Approval voting is. I said that one votes for as many candidates as one wishes, thus making the system clone-immune.

      She left. If she is at all representative of the English as an whole, the English need much instruction about voting methods and are not qualified to vote on this referendum. That explains why the referendum goes down to defeat for the wrong reasons:

      IRV will almost certainly loose because of FUD (fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt). It should go down to defeat because it is still susceptible to Duverger’s Law, is not precinct-summable, costly, and nonmonotonic.

      ¡Peace!

      --

      “⸘Ŭalabio‽” <Walabio@...>

      Skype:

      Walabio

      The first Intactivistic wiki on Earth devoted to Peaceful Beginnings:

      * - HTTP://Intact.Wikia.Com/

      “You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.”

      ——

      Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
    • jackrudd
      ... A decent point, although not precinct-summable is not a relevant argument in the UK - votes are centrally counted anyway. -- Jack Rudd
      Message 2 of 3 , May 3, 2011
        --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ <Walabio@...> wrote:

        >IRV will almost certainly lose because of FUD (fear, Uncertainty, and >Doubt). It should go down to defeat because it is still susceptible >to Duverger's Law, is not precinct-summable, costly, and nonmonotonic.

        A decent point, although "not precinct-summable" is not a relevant argument in the UK - votes are centrally counted anyway.

        --
        Jack Rudd
      • jimrtex4192
        ... Oddly, there is not a requirement that it be done this way. In Britain, returning officers are appointed in each area to conduct elections. They re in
        Message 3 of 3 , May 8, 2011
          --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, "jackrudd" <jackkelshallrudd@...> wrote:
          >
          > --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, ⸘Ŭalabio‽ <Walabio@> wrote:
          >
          > >IRV will almost certainly lose because of FUD (fear, Uncertainty, and >Doubt). It should go down to defeat because it is still susceptible >to Duverger's Law, is not precinct-summable, costly, and nonmonotonic.
          >
          > A decent point, although "not precinct-summable" is not a relevant argument in the UK - votes are centrally counted anyway.

          Oddly, there is not a requirement that it be done this way. In Britain, returning officers are appointed in each area to conduct elections. They're in charge.

          There was a report by the Electoral Commission in which they noted that electoral officials elsewhere in Europe were amazed or aghast that ballots were counted centrally, while in Britain it was conceived that there was no other way to do it.

          But then they noted that in one area (IIRC, it was Brighton for the European elections) a returning officer had counted votes at polling locations, and indications were that everyone was satisfied with the procedure.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.