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

Jonathan Lundell jlundell at pobox.com
Fri Dec 26 09:58:01 PST 2008

On Dec 26, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Dave Ketchum wrote:

> We have a nominee list with much of the formality you describe.
> Then we have write-ins, with very little formality.
> James frowns on such, saying that the UK properly demands more  
> formality in dealing with the needed exceptions to normal nomination.
> I agree that present write-ins are too informal, nominations are too  
> formal to cover all needs, and UK thoughts might help us with doing  
> something to fill the gap.

California write-in rules lie somewhere in that gap. Here's a sample:


These requirements must be met in order for write-in votes to be  

> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 10:56:22 +0000 (GMT) Juho Laatu wrote:
>> 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.
>> Juho
>> --- 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