Submitted by Rob Richie, Mar 31, 2007 09:11

Clay would keep such exchanges going on endlessly, so I will say as a final word here:

1. Everything I wrote was accurate and none of it was misleading.

2, "Top two" IRV indeed is a form of IRV. It's what was adopted in North Carolina for a number of city elections this fall and is being proposed in Vermont.

3. Clay and I just define majority support differently. If a candidate has weak first choice support, I just don't define that candidate as someone who might have "majority support." One thing I can say to support my argument>L here is not an election for any single winner office in public elections in any country in the world where such a weakly supported candidate would win a single-winner office. That says something about the international consensus on what a fair election is or is not.

3. Clay doesn't understand the way politics works if he thinks that range voting wouldn't be immediatley prone to mass tactical voting --- an indiction of it is how its cousin approval voting has basically turned into plurality voting in private elections where it has been tried. He may think he's used convincing arguments to say otherwise, but he hasn't.

Onward.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.