[Election-Methods] RELEASE: Instant Runoff Voting

[Dave Ketchum]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:30:10 -0400 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
...
> Actually, the term in the first sentence is "majority rule," which, in 
> actual operation, makes decisions always between two alternatives, 
> minimized to Yes or No on a single question. 
...
> It could be made compatible, and the method is obvious, and is precisely 
> what Robert's Rules of order describes as how it would be used. A true 
> majority is required to win. IRV then becomes a method of finding 
> majorities, provided that enough voters add enough ranked choices. If 
> all voters rank all the candidates, a majority is guaranteed. 

We happily complain about others' seen misuse of "majority".  Seems to 
mew the above is misuse.

If every voter ranks every candidate, then you have managed a infinity 
of yeses, zero noes, and nothing to indicate which candidate has won. 
  True that the ranking identifies a winner but, if we were looking at 
the ranking, we would have no need to demand the complete ranking 
specified above.

Elsewhere I argue for Condorcet as better than IRV - for more 
completely counting voters' complete preferences.

There I argue for abandonment, or at least relaxation of, majority 
requirements, because voter have more completely expressed their desires.
...
-- 
  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.