<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>At large STV elections are far superior to IRV because it will
represent a much better choice of candidates, (you need only focus
on those that interest you) and get about 9/10 of first
preferences elected. Rather than the single member constituency
case of prefering the candidate you least dislike. Local Scottish
IRV by-elections (instead of STV at nation-wide elections) hardly
differed from FPTP. And Australia general elections have been
stuck with the Alternative Vote or IRV for a century.</p>
<p>STV was party-monopoly enemy number one (to the Machine)
subjected to "battering ram" referendums and their propaganda
largesse (Cambridge was treated to 6 in 16 years). And when even
that failed, the state legislature forbade any other city or town
in the state to have the reform! State banning is mentioned by
Hoag and Hallett as early as 1937.</p>
<p>STV would give minorities proportional representation, blacks
certainly, and one or two Communists promoting the rights of
sweated New York labor. IRV could not give minority
representation. A seemingly unlikely revulsion of a majority
againt Republicans and Democrats would be robbing Peter to pay
Paul, and not democratically acceptable.<br>
</p>
<p>Richard Lung.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 19/12/2023 13:42, Michael Garman
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CANAGaDdfX5=8gZaZ5wuTZEcgFqzGPB8C_Op=nq8AR2cTucVTKA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="auto">Okay, I’ll concede that I was thinking about the
last 30 years or so — what one might call the “FairVote era” but
as I didn’t specify I will stand corrected. By and large, those
historical repeals were motivated by racism and the Red Scare —
opponents feared that STV (and it was STV, not IRV, in most
cases) would give Black people and communists political power. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I’d forgotten about Aspen. Fair enough. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Pierce County repealed RCV because the statewide
switch to top-two primaries rendered ranked choice general
elections obsolete. </div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 3:53
AM Michael Ossipoff <<a
href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">email9648742@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Garman says:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">"And Burlington undid their repeal. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">No other jurisdiction in the US has voted
to repeal RCV."</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">
<h2><span>Implementations rejected</span><span></span></h2>
<p>Between 1912 and 1930, limited forms of ranked-choice
voting (typically with
only two rankings<a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:0-5"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><sup>[5]</sup></a>)
were implemented and subsequently repealed in <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida"
title="Florida" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Florida</a>, <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana"
title="Indiana" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Indiana</a>, <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland"
title="Maryland" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Maryland</a>, <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota"
title="Minnesota" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Minnesota</a>,
and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin"
title="Wisconsin" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Wisconsin</a>.
In the 1970s, it was implemented and repealed in <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Arbor,_Michigan"
title="Ann Arbor, Michigan" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Ann Arbor, Michigan</a>
following the election of
the city’s first Black mayor in an RCV election.<a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:1-254"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><sup>[254]</sup></a><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-255"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><sup>[255]</sup></a>
More recently, it was adopted and repealed in <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_County,_Washington"
title="Pierce County, Washington" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Pierce County, Washington</a>
(2006–2009);<a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:2-6"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><sup>[6]</sup></a>
<a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington,_Vermont"
title="Burlington, Vermont" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Burlington, Vermont</a>
(2005–2010);<a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:3-7"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><sup>[7]</sup></a>
and <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspen,_Colorado"
title="Aspen, Colorado" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Aspen, Colorado</a>
(2007–2010).<a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:4-8"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><sup>[8]</sup></a>
It has since been reinstated in Burlington, and Ann
Arbor residents voted to
reinstate it as well, with that use likely needing
approval from Michigan’s
state legislature.<a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-256"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><sup>[256]</sup></a><a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked-choice_voting_in_the_United_States#cite_note-257"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"><sup>[257]</sup></a></p>
<p>Next, Mr. Garman, I'll contact the person who
mentioned the conference in which Rob Richie or
FairVote promised to stop making the
false-claim...which he or they soon resumed making.</p>
<p> I'll post more details of the incident as soon as I
get them.<span></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at
11:44 PM Michael Garman <<a
href="mailto:michael.garman@rankthevote.us"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">michael.garman@rankthevote.us</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="auto">And Burlington undid their repeal. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">No other jurisdiction in the US has
voted to repeal RCV. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div>On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 11:43 PM Michael Ossipoff
<<a href="mailto:email9648742@gmail.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">email9648742@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>[Quote]</div>
<div>
<div>
<div
id="m_-2997752166328619505m_2089905702161701523m_4176395512855373499gmail-:19n">
<div
id="m_-2997752166328619505m_2089905702161701523m_4176395512855373499gmail-:yk">
<div dir="auto">Republicans were trying
to ban RCV before the Alaska election.
<br>
</div>
<div>[/Quote]</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Same thing happened in Burlington.
CW eliminated & transfers went
away from Rep;publican & toward
Progressive.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>...& there hasn't just been one
repeal. I've been told that there have
been a fair number of repeals of RCV.
When people expect RCV to act like
Condorcet, & it doesn't, RCV then
has repeal as a built-in feature.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">----
Election-Methods mailing list - see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://electorama.com/em">https://electorama.com/em</a> for list info
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>