07-11-2019, 03:21 AM
NR - The two "systems" you outline in your OP are exactly the same. Whenever there are only two candidates, one will always have a majority, so there is no case where your two procedures are different.
To your point in the other thread, IRV actually isn't very complex at all. Its sister-system, Single Transferable Vote (basically IRV but used for multi-winner elections) is the headache-inducing one, and the one that caused all the problems at the ConCon. When you only have a single winner, then it's called IRV (I think you're referring to it as "rounded voting") and is quite simple.
Wym - That's by definition not IRV, that's a Two-Round System. I imagine what was being referred to is the same as to the system that TSP uses, which is also legislated as IRV. It's exactly what NR detailed in the OP.
To your point in the other thread, IRV actually isn't very complex at all. Its sister-system, Single Transferable Vote (basically IRV but used for multi-winner elections) is the headache-inducing one, and the one that caused all the problems at the ConCon. When you only have a single winner, then it's called IRV (I think you're referring to it as "rounded voting") and is quite simple.
Wym - That's by definition not IRV, that's a Two-Round System. I imagine what was being referred to is the same as to the system that TSP uses, which is also legislated as IRV. It's exactly what NR detailed in the OP.