Editorial described Eva Ng

"this means that the second vote is for the same candidate as the first one, while for others the second vote is for a different candidate" Then what's the point of IRV if one votes for the same candidate 3 times?
"The writers revisit the theory that Al Gore lost the 2000 presidential race because of the votes cast for Ralph Nader." Well, the votes cast for Ross Perot enabled Clinton to win twice!

One man one vote only applies to honest democracies. Ours isn't any longer.

Tony Yarusso said, "In each round of counting, every voter gets one vote, for the candidate of his or her choosing for that round. This is in exactly the same fashion as a traditional multiple-ballot runoff.

For some voters, this means that the second vote is for the same candidate as the first one, while for others the second vote is for a different candidate. Either way, every voter gets the exact same weight in subsequent rounds as in the first, unless he or she chooses not to cast a vote."

Boy, are you ever wrong. In a multiple ballot run-off, every voter gets the opportunity to vote for someone different in the second round than they did in the first round. In IRV, only the losers get a "do-over"; everyone else is stuck with their first choice whether they like it or not. Not only that, but you have to be the worst loser. How come all the losers don't get to have their second choice counted.

IRV is typical liberal mentality where losers don't have to take responsibility and ownership of their choices but get as many do-overs as necessary to catch up with the winners.

Sue Jeffers, you may be on to something, at that. I remember (as I'm sure others do) the flap a few elections back when one of the candidates claimed to represent the "No New Taxes" party. Only problem was that the "No New Taxes" party existed on paper only. The candidate was actually a strong Democrat sympathizer. It was a bald-faced ploy to try to siphon votes away from the Republicans that year. It was hoped that enough voters would be enticed (by the name only), enough to tilt the election. Fortunately, the ruse was discovered in time, and the plan fell through.

Just now, it occurs to me that this sort of ruse may be easier to accomplish under IRV, where an entire swarm of splinter parties will swirl around the voters' heads each November...

human too wrote:

Sue Jeffers, you may be on to something, at that. I remember (as I'm sure others do) the flap a few elections back when one of the candidates claimed to represent the "No New Taxes" party. Only problem was that the "No New Taxes" party existed on paper only. The candidate was actually a strong Democrat sympathizer. It was a bald-faced ploy to try to siphon votes away from the Republicans that year. It was hoped that enough voters would be enticed (by the name only), enough to tilt the election. Fortunately, the ruse was discovered in time, and the plan fell through.
Just now, it occurs to me that this sort of ruse may be easier to accomplish under IRV, where an entire swarm of splinter parties will swirl around the voters' heads each November...

You are exactly right! IRV makes elections a farce. No one has to take elections seriously anymore. Vote for the most radical candidate that tickles your fancy just to make a statement. Your first vote doesn't matter because it isn't going to count anyway. I'm waiting to see what these guys are going to do in their nominating convention. It will be interesting to see if they have what it takes to walk the talk. I'm betting they don't.

Gndydncr wrote:

<quoted text>
You are exactly right! IRV makes elections a farce. No one has to take elections seriously anymore. Vote for the most radical candidate that tickles your fancy just to make a statement. Your first vote doesn't matter because it isn't going to count anyway. I'm waiting to see what these guys are going to do in their nominating convention. It will be interesting to see if they have what it takes to walk the talk. I'm betting they don't.

In other words, a person gets to vote for the candidate they think is the best, without having to worry that their vote is being wasted.

It's too bad you fail to see how damaging it is to have elected officials winning with less than a 50% of the vote.

jcf817 wrote:

<quoted text>
In other words, a person gets to vote for the candidate they think is the best, without having to worry that their vote is being wasted.
It's too bad you fail to see how damaging it is to have elected officials winning with less than a 50% of the vote.

I don't believe any vote is 'wasted' when it's cast for whom the voter thinks is best. My vote has never been wasted, not even in these dark times.

I don't have a problem with a 'less than 50%' elected official. It reflects the honest preference of the voters and keeps elected officials humble (or at least it should) knowing that the majority of voters would have preferred someone else. Having multiple rounds of voting in order to attain the golden nugget of 50% is nothing more than pumping air into their already inflated egos.

A letter the other day suggested open primaries rather than closed ones. I like that idea for getting over the 'less than 50%' hangup you have. If the top vote-getter has 50% or less, the top two go on to the general election. A General election is where everybody (not just losers) get to have a second vote of their choice and are not forced to stay with their first choice.

jcf817 wrote:

<quoted text>
In other words, a person gets to vote for the candidate they think is the best, without having to worry that their vote is being wasted.
It's too bad you fail to see how damaging it is to have elected officials winning with less than a 50% of the vote.

I don't see that as damaging. IRV will give someone 50%+ of the vote but that doesn't mean that many people support them.

Former Ranger wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't see that as damaging. IRV will give someone 50%+ of the vote but that doesn't mean that many people support them.

My thoughts exactly. Why stop at 51%? Why not keep counting and eliminating until one person gets all the votes? That way they can claim they have the unanimous mandate of the people. I'm afraid, Ranger, that the other side is all about fluff and deceit and their current leader is the master of them all.