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

Re: IRV in NH ABC Alphabit soup

Expand Messages
  • David
    IRV is preferable to the system used now throughout most of the United States. transition from IRV to Condorcet or approval Please could someone translate
    Message 1 of 15 , Feb 5, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      "IRV is preferable to the system
      used now throughout most of the United States.
      transition from IRV to Condorcet or approval"

      Please could someone translate the Alphabit soup into English?

      IRV= International refrendum vote?
      Inside recreational vechile?
      Instigate regeratation vomit?
      Interior required ventilation?

      Please, when starting a new thread use real words.
      Abreviations can come later when the topic is clearly understood.
      Thank you.
    • Jane
      I agree! And it is always wise to wait to register your vehicle in NH. In 1989 I bought a new Audi in January and waited until we moved in February when the
      Message 2 of 15 , Feb 5, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        I agree!
        And it is always wise to wait to register your vehicle in NH.
        In 1989 I bought a new Audi in January and waited until we moved in
        February when the house was done to register it in NH, thus avoiding
        the 5% sales tax. The registration fee in NH is like a sales tax,
        but it goes down each year and at least is deductible on Federal
        returns.

        On Feb 5, 2006, at 2:26 PM, David wrote:

        > "IRV is preferable to the system
        > used now throughout most of the United States.
        > transition from IRV to Condorcet or approval"
        >
        > Please could someone translate the Alphabit soup into English?
        >
        > IRV= International refrendum vote?
        > Inside recreational vechile?
        > Instigate regeratation vomit?
        > Interior required ventilation?
        >
        > Please, when starting a new thread use real words.
        > Abreviations can come later when the topic is clearly understood.
        > Thank you.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • wolzybk
        IRV means Instant Runoff Voting. The voters rank first choice, second choice, etc. All first choices are counted. If no choice receives an outright
        Message 3 of 15 , Feb 5, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          IRV means Instant Runoff Voting. The voters rank first choice, second
          choice, etc. All first choices are counted. If no choice receives an
          outright majority, then the choice with the least votes is eliminated
          and those votes redistributed according to their second choices. If
          this results in a majority for a choice, then it's done. If not, the
          choice with the next least votes is eliminated, and those votes
          redistributed according to second (or third) choices. And so on.

          It's a fairly good system, in that it (a) eliminates the "wasted vote"
          syndrome, and (b) is easily comprehended. It definitely would be an
          improvement over the current first-past-the-post system. It isn't as
          game-proof/foolproof as the Condorcet system, for instance, but it's
          not bad, and I think is easier to sell due to better comprehensibility.

          For instance, I was willing to explain IRV to you in this post, and was
          able to do so in one short paragraph. Explanation of the Condorcet
          system would be much more involved, so if you are interested in that,
          I'd recommend you check into it yourself.

          philb

          --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, "David" <dwebb5@...> wrote:
          >
          > "IRV is preferable to the system
          > used now throughout most of the United States.
          > transition from IRV to Condorcet or approval"
          >
          > Please could someone translate the Alphabit soup into English?
          >
          > IRV= International refrendum vote?
          > Inside recreational vechile?
          > Instigate regeratation vomit?
          > Interior required ventilation?
          >
          > Please, when starting a new thread use real words.
          > Abreviations can come later when the topic is clearly understood.
          > Thank you.
        • Steve
          Sorry, I have the google toolbar installed and am in the habit of googling any unknown word: double-click a word to select it, right- click to bring up a menu,
          Message 4 of 15 , Feb 7, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Sorry, I have the google toolbar installed and am in the habit of
            googling any unknown word: double-click a word to select it, right-
            click to bring up a menu, google. You can get a good introduction
            to voting theory here:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system

            Jason already moderated me once here, suggesting that I discuss this
            in the forum. Well, we'll do that. But I am sure that he will
            forgive me this one post, since this is an important subject, dear
            to our hearts:
            http://www.freestateproject.org/archives/state_vote/votingmethods.php
            and this thread should contain at least one post with enough
            references to allow the interested reader to pursue the subject
            elsewhere.

            In (general) response to the following post about IRV being simple,
            and an improvement:

            A voting system should be "fair" (which means different things to
            different people, some of them contradictory), but let's say that it
            should produce a result that reflects the "will of the people".
            This means that the voting system has to 1) accurately capture each
            voter's true, detailed preferences, and 2) combine all the votes
            into the "correct" result. Voting thus consists of two steps: vote-
            casting and vote-counting. The first should be simple, the second
            should be a method trusted to produce a good, reliable result.

            One of the best vote-casting methods is to *rank* the candidates in
            your order of preference. IRV uses this method, and so do Condorcet
            and Borda, so they are all equally easy for the voter. That
            Condorcet uses a much more complicated counting system than IRV
            might only be a problem early when the new system is introduced:
            long term, with increasing familiarity, people would (or should)
            care more about how fair the counting method is. For that most
            people would probably rely on expert opinion, same as they do on
            most issues.

            The FSP used Condorcet Voting to select the target state. True, not
            everyone understood the counting method, but most people trusted the
            result. If we had used IRV, there might have been screams.
            Interesting idea: recount the votes using IRV.

            Example: imagine that you and some friends were going to a cineplex,
            and had to pick a movie out of a dozen choices--how would you do
            it? Chances are that you would instinctively pick one of the two
            best systems: you would either all give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down
            vote to each of the movies, or you would each rank your top two or
            three. This would probably get combined with a bit of conversation
            and some horse-trading, but in the end you would reach a
            *consensus*, and walk out of the theater still friends.

            Contrast that scenario with what happens today in US politics.

            The interested reader should also research Duverger's Law
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duvergers_Law
            according to which a first-past-the-post plurality system like what
            you see in the US tends to result in two dominant parties. Third
            parties stand little chance.

            --- In freestateproject@yahoogroups.com, "David" <dwebb5@...> wrote:
            >
            > "IRV is preferable to the system
            > used now throughout most of the United States.
            > transition from IRV to Condorcet or approval"
            >
            > Please could someone translate the Alphabit soup into English?
            >
            > IRV= International refrendum vote?
            > Inside recreational vechile?
            > Instigate regeratation vomit?
            > Interior required ventilation?
            >
            > Please, when starting a new thread use real words.
            > Abreviations can come later when the topic is clearly understood.
            > Thank you.
            >
          • Tarnoff, Blay (IED)
            From: wolzybk ... I must disagree with this statement: although Condorcet probably does yield better results when all the participants are ranking the
            Message 5 of 15 , Feb 8, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              From: wolzybk
              >
              > [IRV] isn't as game-proof/foolproof as the Condorcet
              > system, . . . but it's not bad . . . .

              I must disagree with this statement: although Condorcet probably does
              yield better results when all the participants are ranking the
              candidates honestly, I believe it holds greater temptation for "gaming"
              than does IRV.

              I have tried to send a couple of messages explaining why, but they did
              not made it through, apparently because this subject is off topic for
              this group.

              So, if anyone is interested in why I believe IRV to be superior to
              Condorcet, from a practical standpoint, for public elections, please
              contact me offline and I will send you the three paragraph email that
              failed to make it through.

              Blay Tarnoff

              P.S. Steve writes, "Interesting idea: recount the votes using IRV."
              Well, I did that at the time and even sent an email somewhere with the
              results. Bottom line: the winner was still New Hampshire, by very
              comfortable margin, IIRC.
            • Ryan Gray
              Lost Liberty Hotel is apparently lost. http://www.yourneighborhoodnews.com/goffstown-news/2006/02/news/09-no-lost-liberty-hotel-in-weare.html
              Message 6 of 15 , Feb 9, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Lost Liberty Hotel is apparently lost.
                http://www.yourneighborhoodnews.com/goffstown-news/2006/02/news/09-no-lost-liberty-hotel-in-weare.html

                -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
                A managed democracy is a wonderful thing, Manuel, for the managers... and its greatest strength is a 'free press' when 'free' is defined as 'responsible' and the managers decide what is 'irresponsible'.

                Prof. Bernardo de la Paz in "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"
                By Robert A. Heinlein

                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                http://mail.yahoo.com
              • Seth Cohn
                ... 1) For those of us following this closely, this isn t much of a surprise. Among other things, NH law itself already prevents the taking of land for a
                Message 7 of 15 , Feb 10, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  > Lost Liberty Hotel is apparently lost.

                  1) For those of us following this closely, this isn't much of a
                  surprise. Among other things, NH law itself already prevents the
                  taking of land for a hotel or other 'commercial' usage.
                  Even passage would have meant lawsuits and the end result would be the
                  same: no hotel.

                  2) This was a textbook example of why having 'outsiders' involved is a
                  bad thing. If you want to do things in NH, _live_ in NH. Don't
                  carpetbag. Don't visit. Move or stay out of it.
                  Move to NH and learn how things work here. You'll learn lots in your
                  first few years...
                  All of us here are still earning at the feet of the old hands who are
                  teaching us many valuable lessons.

                  3) Eminent Domain reform is far from a dead issue. Souter's house is
                  far from safe yet... :)

                  4) People who don't understand NH Town meetings and political
                  structure should stay out of the picture (see #2) (No really, see
                  #2.) One person who _knows_ the system and writes extensively about
                  it predicted this exact sort of outcome... but nobody on the 'hotel'
                  side wanted to listen... they 'knew' better. And got spanked.)

                  5) There was widespread support in general for the idea... but the
                  simple majority of those who showed up at the meeting prevailed.
                  Showing up is more than half the battle. This is the major lesson:
                  you might have enough supporters out there, but getting them to the
                  polls/meeting is 90% of the problem. GOTV. GOTV. GOTV. So long as
                  the Democrats and Republicans play this game well, they win. If you
                  can't successfully GOTV where you live (and I believe that's true all
                  over), it's time to move to NH and help us here... the more the
                  merrier..
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.