[EM] Instant Runoff Voting - collection of definitions

[David Catchpole]

I wouldn't call it spamming at all.

On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, MIKE OSSIPOFF 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,
> 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
>
>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guy at hot dog stand:	Yo, Dalai Lama, what'll you have?
The Big DL:		Make me one with everything.
				-Thanks to www.newgrounds.com