[EM] Why I think IRV isn't a serious alternative 2

Juho Laatu juho4880 at yahoo.co.uk
Fri Dec 26 02:56:22 PST 2008

One approach that is used in practice and
that to some extent avoids the problems of

- "few random votes to random people"
- difficulty to identify to whom the votes actually are meant
- votes to people that do not want to be candidates
- having too many candidates

is to require people to collect an agreed
number of names of supporters (and
candidate's agreement) to get their
candidate on the candidate list.


--- On Fri, 26/12/08, Dave Ketchum <davek at clarityconnect.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 14:55:23 -0000 James Gilmour wrote:
> > 
> > Incidentally, my personal view is that there should be
> no provision for "write-ins" at all in public
> elections.  If I am not
> > prepared to declare myself as candidate and be
> nominated in the same way as all the other candidates, I
> cannot see any reason why
> > anyone should take me seriously.  If my
> "friends" think I would be the best person to do
> the job, they should come and tell me and
> > persuade me to stand, nominate me, and then campaign
> like fury to get me elected.
> > 
> Worth some thought:
> I think "nominate" has been thoroughly defined,
> and should not be changed as part of this debate.
> Something such as "authorized for write-in" could
> be developed:
>      Approved by candidate BEFORE the election.  This would
> outlaw some of the present nonsense.
>      Perhaps James could offer useful thought.
> > 
> > James
> --  davek at clarityconnect.com   
> people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
>  Dave Ketchum   108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY  13827-1708  
> 607-687-5026
>            Do to no one what you would not want done to
> you.
>                  If you want peace, work for justice.
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see
> http://electorama.com/em for list info


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list