[EM] Instant Runoff Voting - collection of definitions

[MIKE OSSIPOFF]

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,
but can you please do something about that spammer?


>
>Greetings Janet,
>
>     I have collected a number of definitions given recently in posts from
>different lists.
>     Maybe you can find something that you can use.
>
>Regards, Donald
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11/14/00
>      http://www.igc.org/cvd/irv/vermont/index.html  Instant-Runoff Voting
>May Get a Look As Uncertainty in U.S. Election Continues,  By DAVID WESSEL
>and JAMES R. HAGERTY, Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
>     Here is how instant-runoff voting works: In a race with more than two
>candidates, voters mark not only their first choice, but their second,
>third, fourth choice, and so on. If no candidate gets a majority, the
>losing candidates' votes are reallocated until one candidate has a
>majority. If the U.S. used such a system, votes for Ralph Nader and Patrick
>Buchanan (or, in earlier elections, Ross Perot or George Wallace) would
>have been reallocated to whomever their supporters listed as a second
>choice.
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11/16/00
>Jason Johnston <Jason.Johnston at oberlin.edu>
>[instantrunoff] letters to the editors
>         Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) eliminates that flaw.  With IRV, 
>voters
>can choose to rank a second and third choice, and if their first choice is
>at the bottom of the pile, their votes are redistributed to their second,
>and so on, until the canidate prefered by the majority wins.
>  (check www.farivote.org for more info).
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11/17/00
>First Publication: Lansing State Journal,
>INSTANT RUNOFFS WILL END 'LOSER-TAKES-ALL':
>    Luckily, there is a proven way to find the majority's choice with only
>one ballot.  How?  Use a full-choice ballot that lets voters rank their
>choices instead of only choosing one.
>     Then, if no candidate earns a majority, the least popular one is
>dropped and a runoff is held instantly.  In this runoff, each ballot goes
>to the highest-ranked candidate marked on it, skipping over dropped
>candidates.  This repeats until one candidate has a majority.
>    This "instant runoff voting" ends minority winners-without-mandates and
>would promote positive campaigns, as candidates would appeal to opponents'
>supporters for second and third choice rankings.
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11/21/00
>Village Voice in New York
>http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0047/solomon.shtml
>Florida Fiasco Puts Radical Reforms on the Table
>Taking Back the Vote, by Alisa Solomon
>Under IRV, long in use in national elections in Australia and Ireland,
>instead of simply marking an X next to the most-desired candidate, voters
>would rank them according to preference. If no candidate emerges with a
>majority after all the first-choice votes are counted, then the candidates
>who received the fewest number of 1's are eliminated. The 2's on those
>ballots are then distributed among the remaining candidates until one
>achieves a majority.
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11/20/00
>[instantrunoff] Minnesota column on IRV
>Thursday, Nov 16 issue of the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
>http://www.startribune.com/stOnLine/cgi-bin/article?thisStory=82940277
>Published Thursday, November 16, 2000, Lori Sturdevant:
>     Recent elections have made instant runoff voting look intriguing.
>Alan Shilepsky  said people could vote with numbers. They could mark their
>ballot with a "1" next to their first choice for an office, a "2" next to
>their second choice, and so on.
>    The votes would be counted according to the number-one choices. But if
>that initial count failed to give one candidate more than 50 percent of the
>vote, the count would continue with another step. The ballots for the
>candidate in last place would be resorted according to their second-place
>choices. The sorting would continue until one candidate's count crossed the
>50 percent threshold.
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11/20/00
>[instantrunoff] Houston column on IRV
>Copyright 2000 The Houston Chronicle Publishing Company
>   The Houston Chronicle - View Related Topics
>   November 15, 2000, Wednesday 3 STAR EDITION
>BYLINE: DOUG SANDAGE; Sandage, a Houston attorney and mediator, was a 2000
>Green Party candidate for the U.S. Senate.
>Instead of voting for just one candidate, voters would note their
>preferences in a 1-2-3 sequence. If their first (or second) preference were
>not among the top two vote-getters, their second (or third) preference
>would automatically receive their votes.
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12/02/00
>COMMON SENSE, by Paul Jacob, [the Term Limits Guy]
>There's an easy electronic solution, though: instant runoffs. Say you want
>Nader to win -- but if Nader loses, you'd rather have Gore than Bush. Under
>instant runoff, you'd vote for Nader as First Choice, Gore as Second
>Choice. If no one gets a majority and your First Choice loses, the system
>instantly gives your vote to your Second Choice.
>It's a new idea. You can find out more about it at www.fairvote.org.
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
>

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com