[eDebate] Ballot Count
Fri Jul 21 11:45:24 CDT 2006
This method eliminates the "vote-splitting problem". If a simple plurality of first choices decided things, then First Amendment would have won even though it clearly was highly ranked by only about 25-30% of the schools. Indeed, it would be interesting to know whether a majority of those voting ranked it last (perhaps Jeff can inform us). That is entirely possible. Under the plurality system, Ede's proposal that those who didn't want First Amendment should "caucus" electronically and throw their support to one proposal would have made a great deal of sense.
What this method does is basically have a runoff election if there is no majority. However, rather than having a series of new elections, it simply transfers the vote of those eliminated to their next choice. For complex and multiple choices like this one, most of the election experts agree that this method (sometimes known as single transferable vote, sometimes known as instant runoff) makes the most sense.
----- Original Message -----
From: debate at ou.edu<mailto:debate at ou.edu>
To: edebate at ndtceda.com<mailto:edebate at ndtceda.com>
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 12:36 PM
Subject: [eDebate] Ballot Count
What kind of method is this?
Were there chads involved? The ballot that got the most votes did not win, nor did the ballot with the 2nd most 1st place votes win.
The third place gets first place? This looks like the Iraqi election.
This should be on the Daily Show!
PS_ I got no preference on the winner, but this is crazy~
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at ndtceda.com<mailto:eDebate at ndtceda.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman