[EM] hmmm. Maybe I missed something before SF passed IRV then called it RCV?

[Sennet Williams]

If so, I conditionally apologize.  I had certainly never heard of the term "RCV" until an anti-IRV SF election commissioner suggested that RCV would be a better name and no one objected.  That was around 1990(?), after the SF measure was passed but before it was implemented.  The vote redistribution method is apparently exactly the same in SF, Oakland and Berkeley, all which were voted on as "I.R.V.", but are now usually referred to as RCV.
  If the term R.C.V. had actually been used before that election commission meeting then the implication is that I.R.V. is merely a type of RCV, so I learned something new.
But if that day was actually the  first use of R.C.V., and now someone is applying it to competing counting methods, then that is CO-OPTION, with IRV's competitors trying to take advantage of IRV's huge success in the Bay Area. 
Personally, I think that some other ranked ballot systems (like Condorcet) are theoretically more logical but functionally more difficult, but either one would have the same effect on politics.   As for "weighted" systems, that would not be legal for official U.S. elections.  (Each voter can only have one vote)
I haven't seen the specific text of Don Beyer's. "Fair Representation Act," but I have seen it looks like a variation of Choice Voting being referred to as RCV, but that is not going to pass anyway.
I predict that specific voting system that will be most successful is  "The Maine System" defined by the Question Five:  IRV used for partisan primaries followed by IRV used for the general election.  (The use of a coin flip to break ties is not legal, so scratch that part.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/attachments/20170701/2a246ddb/attachment.htm>