You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #17: It's all relevant! [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU
VerifiedVoter Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-27-09 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #11
17. It's all relevant!
Date of Certification is very relevant - meaning it hasn't been done yet. Do you take office before the results of the race are certified?

Reason why it's not certified - way too many to list here.

Order of count is very relevant because you have to treat all the candidates alike otherwise you get nothing more than a fancier (and more expensive) version of a plurality winner:

Let's say for example that the threshold is 1273. Candidate A has 1100 votes and Candidate B has 1050 votes and all other ballots are exhausted. By this time, no one has counted any votes on the ballots for candidate A or B beyond the first column except to do the 1st round elimination (top 4). What they did in Aspen was only take a look at the votes beyond column 1 for Candidate B, and then transfer any votes to Candidate A. That isn't fair to Candidate B - why not also take a look at all the votes Candidate B got beyond the first column on Candidate A's original ballots?

You have to count all the votes!

What that might allow for is something that we have found to be true in traditional top-two runoff elections - is that the second-place vote getter in the original election can end up getting more votes in the runoff. There are many reasons for that - voters can make a real and better choice based on the issues between two candidates that they cannot make with more than two candidates. The candidates in the first round can chose to support one of the two remaining candidates in the runoff - something they couldn't do before the regular election.

A much fairer way of resolving the big problem IRV has with not crossing the threshold when there are only two candidates standing and after all ballots are exhausted is to hold a traditional runoff election between the top two candidates. But that defeats the whole purpose of doing IRV in the first place. You have the extra added expense and complexity of IRV plus the cost of a second election.

Chris Telesca
Wake County Verified Voting
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Election Reform Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC