<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why Not Intra-Riding STV?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.maderblog.com/index.php/2009/05/why-not-intra-riding-stv/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.maderblog.com/index.php/2009/05/why-not-intra-riding-stv/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 May 2011 15:42:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matthew Fletcher</title>
		<link>http://www.maderblog.com/index.php/2009/05/why-not-intra-riding-stv/comment-page-1/#comment-2902</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Fletcher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2009 01:52:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.maderblog.com/?p=2782#comment-2902</guid>
		<description>Mader,

I agree. I&#039;m a big opponent of any PR initiative, but I don&#039;t really see an STV within each riding as PR. It is more like a run-off election held in one ballot rather than multiple ballots, which I would definitely be in favour of.

I would particularly like to see it, because my bet is that we would end up with roughly the same results that we currently get, except, as you say, the legitimacy of the result would be strengthened because the argument that a majority did not vote for the winning candidate would be eliminated.

My bet is that a slightly larger minority might vote for third-parties or fringe parties, but even these people will make the Liberals or Conservatives their second or third choice. It would prove, I would bet, that even once given the option to make their votes &quot;count&quot; people would still not vote in significant enough numbers for parties like the Greens or the Libertarians to elect more than a very small handful of candidates.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mader,</p>
<p>I agree. I&#8217;m a big opponent of any PR initiative, but I don&#8217;t really see an STV within each riding as PR. It is more like a run-off election held in one ballot rather than multiple ballots, which I would definitely be in favour of.</p>
<p>I would particularly like to see it, because my bet is that we would end up with roughly the same results that we currently get, except, as you say, the legitimacy of the result would be strengthened because the argument that a majority did not vote for the winning candidate would be eliminated.</p>
<p>My bet is that a slightly larger minority might vote for third-parties or fringe parties, but even these people will make the Liberals or Conservatives their second or third choice. It would prove, I would bet, that even once given the option to make their votes &#8220;count&#8221; people would still not vote in significant enough numbers for parties like the Greens or the Libertarians to elect more than a very small handful of candidates.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

