Oh, just cheese and crackers, America! Palin loses.

[Binger]

ETA: your description of the post-election legal process is bollocks.

The “F” it is. How many examples do you want of standing preceding laches? For damned hell damned sakes and Christ on a cross of courier fonts and double spacing with margins.

[canpakes]

If we can't recount votes and we can't audit votes …

Both can still be done with ranked choice voting.

“The more you know …”

[Res Ipsa]

ETA: your description of the post-election legal process is bollocks.

The “F” it is. How many examples do you want of standing preceding laches? For damned hell damned sakes and Christ on a cross of courier fonts and double spacing with margins.

Exactly what do mean by "standing preceding laches?" And, yes, I'd prefer an example. Also, I'd like support for your claim that laches bars a legal challenge after certification. That's a gross misrepresentation of the actual law.

[honorentheos]

I mean, it’s literally called an Al Gore-ithm.

Gotdam.

[honorentheos]

Hey Res, since the other line of discussion is chasing it's own tail I thought I'd ask you about the props up for the vote in Seattle? Thoughts on the ranked choice vs Prop 1A approval voting?

[Res Ipsa]

Hey Res, since the other line of discussion is chasing it's own tail I thought I'd ask you about the props up for the vote in Seattle? Thoughts on the ranked choice vs Prop 1A approval voting?

I don't live within the City limits, so I haven't looked. But I will now.

ETA: There doesn't seem to be much data on approval voting, so it's hard to evaluate. I read a couple of criticisms of approval voting, which I think have merit. One is it encourages tactical voting. If I vote for all candidates of which I approve, I've actually diluted the impact of the vote for my number one choice. In the couple cities where approval voting has been used, candidates encourage their supporters to vote only for them. So, a voter that does what she is supposed to (vote for all candidates of which she approves) is disadvantaged vis-a-vis a voter who strategically votes for only their most preferred candidate.

The other problem is that the system is inherently biased towards centrist candidates. In fact, it can result in election of a centrist candidate who is no one's first choice. There may be an argument that such a thing is good for political stability, but it doesn't fit with what I think is most important: using a system that encourages voters to express their actual preferences, takes into account those preferences, and minimizes incentives for strategic voting.

I see it will be used only for primaries, so there will still be a head to head contest in the final. But, from what I've read, the method isn't reliable in terms of resulting in that contest being between the two candidates that the electorate as whole prefers.

I don't think I'd vote for it. But I don't have a firm opinion.