FairVote is making a tangibly false claim here. Can you spot it?
-
In Burlington 2009, 2005 of voters for Kurt Wright had their candidate defeated (which means their vote could no longer help their top choice) but did not get their vote counting for their next choice. 495 of the 2005 voters were not harmed because of that, because their next choice was elected. But 1510 voters that marked a different candidate for their next choice were denied their vote counting for their next choice, despite the claim.
And if their second-choice vote had counted, a different candidate would have been elected.
They actually caused the election of their least favorite candidate by marking their favorite as #1.
"Vote your hopes, not your fears." or "RCV allows you to always vote for the candidate you like best without worry of wasting your vote." These 1510 voters for Kurt Wright found out differently.
-
@rb-j I think they made the same mistake someone who says "safety equipment prevents injury and death" makes, when they don't qualify it with "safety equipment prevents injury and death some of the time, but there are times when even using safety equipment won't prevent injury, because the world isn't perfect. So let's dwell on that latter case, rather than actually making progress by getting people to use safety equipment".
I'm all in on the safety equipment manufacturer continuing to attempt to make the equipment better. I am not in agreement with discouraging people to wear it at all because it has a non-zero failure rate.
I continue to believe you are doing an overall disservice by dwelling on one failure that was the equivalent of the guy above getting a bruise or abrasion.
