[EM] Why I think IRV isn't a serious alternative 1

Kristofer Munsterhjelm km-elmet at broadpark.no
Mon Dec 15 00:36:31 PST 2008

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> At 02:29 PM 12/7/2008, Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
>> But your description confused me somewhat, regarding what's the 
>> assembly and what's the electoral college.
> The electoral college is simply a term for the collection of electors, 
> who are public voters. It's similar to the U.S. electoral college, but 
> these electors are chosen by voters directly, without contest. I presme 
> that they would be required to register, they might get a number to be 
> used by voters to specify them, there might e a pamphlet published with 
> a list of registered "candidates," we might as well say "electors" 
> because we may assume that they will all get at least one vote, should 
> they vote for themselves.
> In some systems there may be a minimum number of votes to actually 
> qualify as an elector, but that is under "difficult conditions," I won't 
> consider it here.

Let me see if I got this right. If you were to elect a President using 
Asset (I know, not a good way to use the method, but I'm trying to keep 
it simple), it would go like this:

- You vote for whoever you think would be a good elector.
- Electors gather and deliberative body rules are used with a threshold 
(to keep scaling problems from going out of hand).
- When there's a majority, the President's elected. Otherwise the 
process continues.

Something like that? Or is it

- You vote for whoever you think would be a good elector.
- Electors gather and discuss.
- There's an STV vote (or some good single-winner method for President) 
at the end and the winner wins.

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list