[EM] What's your problem Mike???

[Instant Runoff Voting supporter]

MikeO wrote:
>Janet didn't ask for a definition of IRV. She asked for other briefly-
>defined methods. So our IRV spammer posts 7 definitions of Instant
>Runoff.
>
>Rob L., I didn't want to bother you about this,      [THEN DON'T]
>but can you please do something about that spammer?


>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dear Mike,
       [ONE POST DOES NOT A SPAMMER MAKE]
     As usual, you are in error.
     Janet's post clearly uses the term IRV.
     See below:
     What's your problem, Mike???

Don

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: "JanetRAnderson" <JanetRAnderson at email.msn.com>
To: <nkklrp at hotmail.com>, <election-methods-list at eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [EM] Majority winner set, Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2000

 I'm still grasping for a counting method which is easily explained to the
public.  Let me try this out with you. Using IRV, eliminate all but the two
top candidates, in order from least to most.  A look at the real life
current returns in Florida shows, better than most mathematical formulas,
how critical the order of transfer becomes in a close election.  Would this
be an improvement over the current definition of IRV?
 Janet

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -