Vermont is fairly close to permanently adopting IRV.
The current Gov and Lt Gov are Republicans, but I've been in contact with the (likely winner) Lt Gov, Campaign Manager for the Gov, and the Chief of Staff for the (Dem) Speaker of the Vermont House.
It's a math question, and none of them are mathematicians. I have yet to come up with the "instantly obvious" presentation.
It would be quite logical of me spend part of next week generating 3d graphs that would illustrate how the different system create different results.
That is, after all, what the National Academy of Sciences did in order to change the mathematics of apportionment.
Actually, Libertarian and Christian Fundie Republicans, anyone who leans towards a third party, would favor rational voting system reform.
> > > >Those are the results you advocate.
> >>
> >> No use denying it, someone here is sure to remember me advocating a
> >> vote for GW Bush. I deny advocating slavery, segregation and
> >> theocracy though.
> >>
> >> >And you call ME reactionary?
> >>
> >> No, I suggested that a particular position you were advocating was
> >> somewhat reactionary. You are more than your stance on one issue.
> >> Don't take it personally unless I say you are a reactionary per se.
> >>
> >> >Are you a Communist who votes Republican because you think it means the
> >> >revolution will come sooner?
> > >
> >> Not THE revolution, but Bush the Smaller has certainly brought the US
> >> empire closer to collapse, as I predicted he would. Obviously its a
> >> matter of perspective, but from my perspective that is a good thing,
> >> in the long run.
> >>
> >> But I wouldn't think less of you for believing otherwise. (See, now
> >> THAT was a personal insult. Actually, I didn't mean it, I WOULD think
> >> less of you if I thought you desired the US empire to continue any
> >> longer than could be avoided.)
> >>
> >> Anyhow, now that you've changed the subject I'm getting bored with
> >> this discussion.
> >
> >A half dozen times you have proved yourself to be talking far beyond
> >your wisdom. You say I was talking about PR, when I never do.
>
> You use your words for a thing, I use mine. We both seem to be
> getting confused by that. It would be better if we spoke the same
> language, I suggest we use mine. ;-)
>
> Anyhow, you said:
>
> "The point you missed is that a sane Ranked Ballot system will
> increase the number of electable parties."
>
> Now I interpreted that to be a reference to election in multiple
> member electorates by proportional representation, rather than
> election in a single member electorate by simple preferential
> election.
So, you jumped to conclusions, and jumped all over me for not liking them.
> Because reducing the proportion of votes a candidate needs
> to win election is the obvious way to increase the number of
> electable parties. And PR does that.
PR might be semi-useful for assemblies, but it is useless for electing people to single seats (Governors, Presidents, Attorneys General).
Even with PR, you still have to consider how you count the votes. Matrix Math is the only sound way.
> However I see that you capitalised the "Ranked Ballot", perhaps you
> had in mind some special meaning for the words which are not
> immediately apparent? If so, then I have no idea what you are talking
> about. It doesn't help that you refer to things by some archaic 18th
> century term like "Condorcet". If you are so in favour of
> preferential voting reform in your country then surely you can
> appreciate that it doesn't help to refer to it by some weird exotic
> term, instead of the plain English descriptive term.
Condorcet is the standard, current, term for it.
http://www.mcdougall.org.uk/VM/ISSUE3/P5.HTM
If you care to criticize my proposals, surely you can appreciate that it doesn't help to (fatuously) criticize the terminology, instead of dealing with the issue on the merits.
> >At no point have I ever drifed from the topic I introduced with this
> >thread, which was Condorcet (Schulze/Tideman) balloting and the
> >consequences of not having it.
>
> OK, I must have dreamed the reference to slavery and theocracy then.
Consequences, mate.
> >I have to remember that things are a lot worse in Australia. That
> >Murdoch, and the nutcase who runs the radio stations down there, and
> >(until recently) Hollinger have been feeding your entire nation's people
> >a line so filled with crap that you are living in a land of news zombies.
>
> Murdoch is an American now and "the nutcase who runs the radio
> stations" could be ay of dozens of people. But who's Hollinger? You
> aren't going to rename Kerry Packer as well as everything else are
> you. (The late media mogul, Australia's richest person, once
> nicknamed "the Goanna".) Christ you yanks have a nerve!
Packer, it was. While I was in Australia he had the row with the Governor over pokie machines. The Gov said Packer had threatened to spend millions running ads against him unless he came out pro-pokie. After the Gov said this, Packer used his radio stations to call the Gov a "loonie" (iirc) for suggesting that it had ever happened.
Hollinger(Conrad Black) is the Canadian, I was mistaken in my keeping track of the right wing machine CEOs.
> >Do you advocate for the end of Australian Empire, and their wonderful
> >forays into Oceania for stability in Irian Jaya?
>
> You are being absurd.
>
> Austalia doesn't have an Empire, it is by inclination a colony and by
> long-standing practice a toady to the powerful. Its troops only ever
> fight overseas at the behest of either the British (for e.g. Boer
> war, WW1, Malaya, WW2, or the Americans Korea, Vietnam, etc.)
>
> By Irian Jaya, I expect you mean West Papua? Once again, I request
> you be a little careful with language, to refer to an occupied
> territory by the name given it by the occupiers is to give comfort to
> the oppressors. I know of no Australian government forays into West
> Papua, though there are some non-government aid workers there from
> Australia.
I called it that, most likely, because that was what it was called when Australia was mucking about:
http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/AHR/archive/Issue-December-2000/philpott.html
> And no I hate the way the Australian government toadies to the
> Indonesians. But toadying is what Australia does, and in fact
> Australia went along with the Indonesian annexation of West Papua, at
> the behest of The USA. An American mining company had a big interest
> in exploiting mineral resources there apparently and since the
> Indonesians had already sent their troop in to claim the place, the
> Americans were only interested in stability for the mining company.
> When the US says jump, Australia asks "how high", that's the way it
> is.
I simply don't know of any collapses of any Empires that resulted in anything better. The barbarians of the Frankish Kingdoms after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire being the example that springs to mind most readily.
> Despite this, it is still safe for Americans to walk the streets in
> Australia because, as I mentioned, Australians are grovelling
> supplicants by inclination. We're a little too tolerant I sometimes
> think.
>
> >Or does ASIO/ASIS have your tongue?
>
> Look, I know you aren't serious, but you need to watch that sort of
> talk on this list. Doug gets a bit trigger-happy sometimes and I'd
> hate our little debate to be cut short by your sudden involuntary
> departure from this world. So again, watch your language.
>
> Don't shoot Doug, its harmless.
>
> Bill Bartlett
> Bracknell Tas