[Pnp-wg] Full IRV example, was Re: Interim report sections (fwd)

[Phil Huckelberry]

Charlie writes:
> Having experimented in real-time with various systems, I have become a
> Borda/Condorcet supporter. I feel either of these processes can be more
> conducive to compromise candidates and positions but IRV purists do not
> accept that a candidate with minority support in initial ranking should be
> (s)elected.

My feeling is that the IRV/Condorcet debate is irrelevant because if we
use a standard, traditional, time-tested system of simply going multiple
rounds until we get a winner, then we'll have a clear majority winner
without any of the potential drawbacks of any ranked systems.

To be able to do that, the convention would have to be longer.  One of the
frustrating things I'm seeing here is that many of the same people (not
just here) make two complaints:  one, that it's an expensive imposition;
and two, that we need more time at the convention because the cramped
schedule last year did not foster democracy.  But if you expand the
schedule and make the PNC part two if not three days all by itself, the
imposition on delegates grows significantly.  I also find it confusing
that people are acting like GPUS, not the states, should be the primary
fundraiser for offsetting delegate costs, without acknowledging that
everyone within GPUS is representing a state as is.  The GPUS CC
affirmatively decided it was going to invest itself in fundraising, and
many of you are GPUS CC members - if you want GPUS to shoulder the
fundraising burden, does that mean that you're intending to take it on
yourself?

Phil Huckelberry
Illinois Green Party