Draft Picks for Districts 3 & 5

[jokerman]

I read about it in Time Magazine.  They called it Instant Runoff Voting.

[Colin]

I read about it in Time Magazine.  They called it Instant Runoff Voting.

Yes IRV can be another name for it. Actually the biggest example of a country using this method is Australia where they have been using it in Elections since the 1920s I think.

[jokerman]

I wish the US would use the system and then Al Gore would have become President.

[Colin]

I wish the US would use the system and then Al Gore would have become President.

Well it all matters on who Greens Second Preference. They might have hated the Democrats so much that a good number might have preferenced Bush. Also Libertarians, Reform party, and Constitution party members would have definitely second preferenced Bush above Gore so it would even out.

[jokerman]

Possibly...

[minionofmidas]

I wish the US would use the system and then Al Gore would have become President.

Well it all matters on who Greens Second Preference. They might have hated the Democrats so much that a good number might have preferenced Bush. Also Libertarians, Reform party, and Constitution party members would have definitely second preferenced Bush above Gore so it would even out.

Nah, there's probably a higher percentage of libertarians would have picked Gore than of Greens would have picked Bush.
Anyways, Nader received about 2.7% of the vote, Reform and Libertarians 0.9%, all others (chiefly Constitution/likely Bush and Natural Law/likely Gore, plus some Socialists, some Write-ins, and some Assorted Nutjobs) 0.2%. Ignoring those 0.2%, you still have to assume fully one third of Nader voters would have voted Bush and no Libertarians and Buchanananites would have picked Gore to break even...and that still leaves Gore with his .5% lead in the popular vote.

[Colin]

I wish the US would use the system and then Al Gore would have become President.

Well it all matters on who Greens Second Preference. They might have hated the Democrats so much that a good number might have preferenced Bush. Also Libertarians, Reform party, and Constitution party members would have definitely second preferenced Bush above Gore so it would even out.

Nah, there's probably a higher percentage of libertarians would have picked Gore than of Greens would have picked Bush.
Anyways, Nader received about 2.7% of the vote, Reform and Libertarians 0.9%, all others (chiefly Constitution/likely Bush and Natural Law/likely Gore, plus some Socialists, some Write-ins, and some Assorted Nutjobs) 0.2%. Ignoring those 0.2%, you still have to assume fully one third of Nader voters would have voted Bush and no Libertarians and Buchanananites would have picked Gore to break even...and that still leaves Gore with his .5% lead in the popular vote.

Well it didn't happen and its not going to happen so unless you want to take this to the What-If thread I would rather not use up forum space debating something that never happened.

[Bono]

I wish the US would use the system and then Al Gore would have become President.

Well it all matters on who Greens Second Preference. They might have hated the Democrats so much that a good number might have preferenced Bush. Also Libertarians, Reform party, and Constitution party members would have definitely second preferenced Bush above Gore so it would even out.

Nah, there's probably a higher percentage of libertarians would have picked Gore than of Greens would have picked Bush.
Anyways, Nader received about 2.7% of the vote, Reform and Libertarians 0.9%, all others (chiefly Constitution/likely Bush and Natural Law/likely Gore, plus some Socialists, some Write-ins, and some Assorted Nutjobs) 0.2%. Ignoring those 0.2%, you still have to assume fully one third of Nader voters would have voted Bush and no Libertarians and Buchanananites would have picked Gore to break even...and that still leaves Gore with his .5% lead in the popular vote.

What matters is Florida, not the popular vote.

[minionofmidas]

Bono: Read the thread more closely.
Colin: No problem. I didn't start it.

[JohnFKennedy]

I read about it in Time Magazine.  They called it Instant Runoff Voting.

Yes IRV can be another name for it. Actually the biggest example of a country using this method is Australia where they have been using it in Elections since the 1920s I think.

I am not sure but I believe the name for it is Alternative Voting System, we are studying it in politics.

[Gabu]

There's actually a proposition here in BC to enact this kind of voting for provincial elections; as far as I could tell, it's exactly as we do it, but they call it the "Single Transferable Vote method" or something like that.

[JohnFKennedy]

There's actually a proposition here in BC to enact this kind of voting for provincial elections; as far as I could tell, it's exactly as we do it, but they call it the "Single Transferable Vote method" or something like that.

STV is different from what we have and is a form of PR.

[Gabu]

There's actually a proposition here in BC to enact this kind of voting for provincial elections; as far as I could tell, it's exactly as we do it, but they call it the "Single Transferable Vote method" or something like that.

STV is different from what we have and is a form of PR.

Oh, how does it work?  Maybe I didn't read the proposition carefully regarding what it does.

EDIT: No, I looked it up and it is the same thing.  According to Wikipedia, "When a similar method [of Single Transferable Vote] is applied to single-seat elections it is sometimes called instant-runoff voting."  Ours are single-seat elections.

[JohnFKennedy]

There's actually a proposition here in BC to enact this kind of voting for provincial elections; as far as I could tell, it's exactly as we do it, but they call it the "Single Transferable Vote method" or something like that.

STV is different from what we have and is a form of PR.

Oh, how does it work?  Maybe I didn't read the proposition carefully regarding what it does.

It is used in multi-member constituencies.

It requires that all those elected receive a majority of the vote in the constituency.

The "Droop Quota" is used to determine the number of votes necessary:

Q = (total votes cast/number of seats + 1) +1

E.g.

In a 5 member constituency with 360,000 electors, the required number of votes is 60,001.

In the first phase of the count anybody with 60,001 votes or more is elected (Usually at least one candidate is elected here) The votes that were for them are now transferred to their second preferences which can lead to the election of another candidate. From here in they eliminate from the bottom upwards until all the vacancies are filled.

[Gabu]

There's actually a proposition here in BC to enact this kind of voting for provincial elections; as far as I could tell, it's exactly as we do it, but they call it the "Single Transferable Vote method" or something like that.

STV is different from what we have and is a form of PR.

Oh, how does it work?  Maybe I didn't read the proposition carefully regarding what it does.

It is used in multi-member constituencies.

It requires that all those elected receive a majority of the vote in the constituency.

The "Droop Quota" is used to determine the number of votes necessary:

Q = (total votes cast/number of seats + 1) +1

E.g.

In a 5 member constituency with 360,000 electors, the required number of votes is 60,001.

In the first phase of the count anybody with 60,001 votes or more is elected (Usually at least one candidate is elected here) The votes that were for them are now transferred to their second preferences which can lead to the election of another candidate. From here in they eliminate from the bottom upwards until all the vacancies are filled.

According to Wikipedia, it can be used in either a proportional representation setup or a single-seat election setup, and it's called "instant-runoff voting" (what Atlasia has) when it's applied to single-seat elections, which are what we have in BC.

[JohnFKennedy]

There's actually a proposition here in BC to enact this kind of voting for provincial elections; as far as I could tell, it's exactly as we do it, but they call it the "Single Transferable Vote method" or something like that.

STV is different from what we have and is a form of PR.

Oh, how does it work?  Maybe I didn't read the proposition carefully regarding what it does.

It is used in multi-member constituencies.

It requires that all those elected receive a majority of the vote in the constituency.

The "Droop Quota" is used to determine the number of votes necessary:

Q = (total votes cast/number of seats + 1) +1

E.g.

In a 5 member constituency with 360,000 electors, the required number of votes is 60,001.

In the first phase of the count anybody with 60,001 votes or more is elected (Usually at least one candidate is elected here) The votes that were for them are now transferred to their second preferences which can lead to the election of another candidate. From here in they eliminate from the bottom upwards until all the vacancies are filled.

According to Wikipedia, it can be used in either a proportional representation setup or a single-seat election setup, and it's called "instant-runoff voting" (what Atlasia has) when it's applied to single-seat elections, which are what we have in BC.

Ah, ok, the type I mentioned is used in Ireland and from what I have read Atlasia uses Alternative Voting System which is what Australia has.

[CheeseWhiz]

King, since you are a Moderate Conservative-Libertarian (not to mention Atlas Football Commissioner, the “draft picks” title must have attracted you here would you consider running for the District 5 senate race?

Sorry, Cheese. I endorse JFK for another term.

I noticed you have a button on your sig that says to elect you for District 5.  Does that mean you are running, after all?

[Colin]

King, since you are a Moderate Conservative-Libertarian (not to mention Atlas Football Commissioner, the “draft picks” title must have attracted you here would you consider running for the District 5 senate race?

Sorry, Cheese. I endorse JFK for another term.

I noticed you have a button on your sig that says to elect you for District 5.  Does that mean you are running, after all?

No JFK dropped out. It nice to make websites and graphs but you need to stay up on the news.