[Pnp-wg] Voting rounds

[Charlie]

I agree. I just ended up chasing that rabbit as it went by.

An alternative to the time issue is to just have made arrangements for the 
PNC to run as long *that day* as needed to get a nominee.

Charlie Green
CO

Phil Huckelberry wrote:
> 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