Portland hearing on Instant Runoff Voting - TONIGHT

Best to post something like this at the very least one day in advance,more is better!

might be able to catch the (HRC) human rights commission - charter discussion at city hall instead 5:30 - 7:30

The four who testified did a good job. Would have been nice to see a larger turnout.

Must have been the finals to American Idol or perhaps, posting opinions on the internet took precedence.

It depends on a very complex algorithm that can only be implemented by complicated computer algorithms. Every government that has tried to implement IRV has devolved into a two-party duopoly, no different than the duopoly that has resulted from our "pleurocracy" voting method.

Try approval voting with three consecutive runoffs if you want real democracy.

The U.S. Green Party is a virtual front for the Rockefeller Brother's Fund. Most of the lower-level members don't know that, of course.

IRV merely gives more "expressiblity" but no more voter effectuallity — the voters have absolutely no more "say." If someone gives you a lottery ticket, and lets you pick the number do you have more "say" than if they choose the number? No!

The BS that were funded by the Rockefellers is laughable. When you smear the Green Party, please provide some proof.

IRV works successfully in many places both in the US and across the globe, in government, and outside of government.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

The Green Party supports other electoral reforms including proportional representation, lower the voting age, allowing ex-cons to vote, etc. Unfortunately, all other reforms are even more unlikely to pass. Politics is sometimes the art of the possible.

Let's get IRV here in Portland and then pick the next battle.

My statement that "The U.S. Green Party is a virtual front for the Rockefeller Brother's Fund" was a misstatement. It was late, and I was tired. I generally support nearly everything that my acquaintances in the Green Party do. So I shouldn't have said that. However, I am not a young person, and experience has taught me that no large organization that deals with political issues should be trusted. Consider what happened to the Pacifica Radio Network, for example. Also, it greatly disturbs me that the Greens continue to promote IRV. That voting method certainly is backed by Rockefeller Brothers Fund grants, the Carnegie Mellon Fund, and the Ford Foundation, and I have found web links to prove it over the years, but the pages tend to disappear.

Many mathematicians consider IRV to be a menace to democracy. For example:

/ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Kathy Dopp
 http://kathydopp.com/wordpress/?cat=8

IRV/STV remove the right cast a vote with a positive effect on a candidate's chances of winning because it is non-monotonic (increasing the number of votes for a candidate may cause that candidate to lose, whereas the candidate otherwise would have won). See this video:
Instant Runoff Voting - Every Vote Counts!
\____________________

/ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
MATH NEWS ARCHIVE
 http://www.dm.unito.it/~cerruti/mathnews0511.html

Warren Smith, a former Temple University mathematician and co-founder of rangevoting.org a hub for support of range voting laments "a vicious cycle where an argument against using it is that it hasn't been used." Without much empirical data on range voting to work with, Smith has conducted extensive simulations that indicate range voting would beat its leading opponents in many categories, including minimizing the extent to which the electoral outcome would differ from the one that would optimize voter satisfaction. Smith said he had predicted that instant runoff would "derail the cause of genuine voting reform because it would get widely realized that instant runoff voting was a poor system." He sees evidence of this outcome in U.K. voters' rejection last week of instant runoff.
\____________________

/ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
MPRnews
 link to minnesota.publicradio.org

St. Paul, Minn. — A mathematician who's spent years analyzing voting systems told a Minneapolis audience Tuesday that instant runoff voting is not the answer.

IRV allows voters to rank the candidates for a given office in order of preference. Winners are determined in a series of simulated runoff elections. IRV supporters say it's a better reflection of public opinion than so-called "plurality" elections, where whoever gets the most votes wins.

But Donald Saari, a mathematics professor at the University of California Irvine, told an audience at the University of Minnesota's Institute for Math and its Applications that IRV suffers from many of the same problems as traditional plurality elections.
\____________________

And so on.

Many communities that have adopted IRV have abolished it.

/ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
REPEAL IRV- KEEP VOTING SIMPLE
 http://repealirv.blogspot.com/

IRV promoters are desperate as FairVote and IRV lose credibility and market share. You can only fool SOME of the people, SOME of the time. After a few IRV elections, people get wise to the game and may not know exactly how the game is run, or why it feels slimy, but they know the odds are always in favor of the house. Check out IRV for Newbies.
\____________________

Instant Runoff Voting - Facts vs Fiction
 http://www.instantrunoffvoting.us/

This blog is about the problems with Instant Runoff Voting in the US - the latest reports, news,and commentary. Educating and informing the public and government officials about IRV.
 http://instantrunoff.blogspot.com/
_____________________

Since IRV has all these problems, and has caused so much political upheaval, I just don't understand how the Green Party continues to advocate for it.

To determine the pros and cons of IRV, let's look at the real world, not mathematical proofs. If you actually research places where IRV elections occur, you'll see people who generally like the system.

The Mayor of Burlington is elected using IRV. Here is an analysis by an IRV supporter


 http://www.fairvote.org/response-to-faulty-analysis-of-burlington-irv-election