Talk:History and use of instant-runoff voting
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Why was IRV/STV abandoned in the past?
In historical cases where IRV or STV have been tried then abandoned, why was it abandoned? What problems occurred, who did not like it and why? E.g.: "The Northern Ireland Parliament continued to use the combination until the late 1920s when it switched to the 'first past the post' plurality system" -- why? DBrnstn 14:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- Shhhhh.... Don't ask! (whisper) politics.... I'd guess. Someone could and should do the research.
There is some information on the initiative that rescinded Preferential Voting in Ann Arbor, MI. Basically, the Republicans lost the mayor's office because the Democrats and a progressive party stopped splitting the vote by implementing PV, so they ran an initiative campaign, special election with low attendance, I think, and killed it. Probably similar reasons existed for getting rid of Bucklin voting in various states. Proportional representation was dumped in New York because, horrors, it was electing a few BLACKS and COMMIES! What else would you expect? --Abd (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- My interpretation as well - plurality holds sway because it usually gives advantage to those who already have the power. And YES - definitely worth getting more history here! (AND FairVote has done more on that regard (for U.S.) than any other source I know.) At least one page here - [1]. Tom Ruen (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] This article badly needs a write-up of Australia and also more on Papua New Guinea and Fiji
The glaring hole in this article is the 80-year history of IRV in Australia and recent uses in Papua New Guinea and Fiji. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RRichie (talk • contribs) 22:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)