[EM] In effect and in voting theory, Plurality is a rankings method. (Supplementary Vote)

[Steve Barney]

FYI, also known as the "Second Choice Vote," it was used statewide in the 
Wisconsin election of 1914 (see appendix in 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/InstantRunoffWI/message/33>), and a bill for 
reinstating in was sponsored by a Wisconsin State Senator by the name of 
Morticai Lee shortly after the 1980 spliting of the vote which resulted in 
the election of President Ronald Reagan. More recently, Morticai put in a 
plug for it in his Jan. 16 appearance on Wisconsin Public TV ("Here and 
Now" Transcript #000228,
<http://www.wpt.org/npa/transcripts/index.cfm?did=7741#2>.

Steve Barney
Oshkosh, WI

>From: "James Gilmour" <jgilmour at globalnet.co.uk>
>To: <election-methods-electorama.com at electorama.com>
>Subject: RE: [EM]  In effect  and in voting theory,  Plurality is 
>a  rankings method.  (Supplementary Vote)
>Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 19:18:14 -0000
>Organization: Dr James Gilmour
>
>Chris wrote:>
> > By way of a contrasting example, there is a horrible method
> > called "the Supplementary Vote" (is or was used to elect the
> > Lord Mayor of London in the UK), which is a version of IRV
> > that restricts voters to voting a single first and a single
> > second preference. Obviously, with four or more candidates, this is
> > not equivalent to IRV because it can give a different result.
>
>The "Supplementary Vote" is indeed a horrible voting system, but I don't 
>think it is helpful to
>describe it as a version of IRV.  I think it may pre-date IRV (= ballot 
>papers marked with unlimited
>preferences and candidates eliminated one-at-a-time) and it is perhaps 
>better seen as a different
>branch of development from run-off elections.  It was used in Australia 
>from 1892 to 1942, when it
>was known as the "Contingent Vote".  It was also used in the Democrat 
>primaries in Alabama from 1915
>to 1931.  More recently, it has been used to elect the President of Sri 
>Lanka since 1982 (voters can
>mark up to 3 preferences, but the 'run off' is between only the top two 
>candidates).  Regrettably
>this horrible voting system was adopted by the UK Labour Government for 
>the election of the Mayor of
>London and for the mayors of the small number of other towns and cities in 
>England that have opted
>for this model of local government.
>
>In the UK version voters can mark only two preferences but do not mark 
>conventional preferences
>("1", "2").  Instead they mark "X" against one candidate in the first 
>column and "X" against one
>(different) candidate in the second column.  If no candidate has an 
>absolute majority of the first
>preference votes, all but the first two candidates are eliminated and the 
>votes for the eliminated
>candidates transferred.  Second preferences not for one of the leading two 
>candidates are thus
>discarded.  In the May 2000 election for the London Mayor, these discarded 
>votes were 57% of the
>potentially transferable votes.  Chris did say it was a horrible system!
>James
>
>
>
>--__--__--
>
>_______________________________________________
>Election-methods mailing list
>Election-methods at electorama.com
>http://lists.electorama.com/listinfo.cgi/election-methods-electorama.com
>
>
>End of Election-methods Digest

Richard M. Hare, 1919 - 2002, In Memoriam:
<http://www.petersingerlinks.com/Hare/>.

Did you know there is a web site where, if you click on a button, the
advertisers there will donate 2 1/2 cups of food to feed hungry people in
places where there is a lot of starvation? See:
<http://www.thehungersite.com>.