SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Floridians for Solar Choice reports
[November 8,] Florida voters rejected Amendment 1--the utility-backed proposal that sought to limit the growth of customer-owned solar power in the Sunshine State.
In a true David and Goliath battle, a diverse grassroots coalition of more than 200 organizations, solar companies, elected officials, and thousands of concerned citizens worked to defeat the deceptive utility-backed amendment. Amendment 1 opponents feel that a significant percentage of the "yes" voters felt they were tricked once they understood the true nature of the ballot measure. Constitutional amendments in Florida require 60 percent support to pass.
The millions of dollars in slick ad buys and glossy mailers did not win the day as opponents of Amendment 1 successfully harnessed social and earned media to educate Floridians about the true intent of this deceptive proposal while tapping a vast network of organizations, solar businesses and supporters who remain committed to growing--not restricting--Florida's solar industry.
[...] "In all my years of public service, I had never seen such a thinly-veiled attempt to intentionally mislead Florida voters" [...] said Mike Fasano (R), a former state Senator and current tax collector of Pasco County Tax.
Previously, PhilSalkie pointed out how easy it was to be confused by the competing proposals and other Soylentils weighed in on the disgusting state of electric infrastructure in Florida.
Florida Voters [Overwhelmingly] Approve Solar Energy Tax Break Constitutional Amendment
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday November 19 2016, @06:53PM
Approval voting would probably be better, but what is wrong with instant runoff, other than educating voters on how to use it?
Example anti-Trump vote: You rank Jill Stein 1st, Hillary Clinton 2nd. Or the 2000 equivalent: Ralph Nader 1st, Al Gore 2nd.
Your third party candidate gets a chance of winning, without your vote acting as a "spoiler".
In polls, which could ask "who is your first choice?", people can legitimately answer their preferred candidate rather than the "less evil" 2-party pick. If third party candidates can do better in the polls, they will get more attention (even in the corporate media).
I can't see it as anything other than an improvement for third party candidates. At worst, it is less effective than approval voting due to voter confusion, but it is still too much of a risk to entrenched political interests to push it. Which is why Maine adopted the system via a ballot measure and not a vote of the legislature.
I looked at some of the "evidence" you linked in an earlier comment, but it doesn't seem to reflect the nuances of reality. The supposed whitening effect [rangevoting.org] of IRV could be explained by cultural/voter differences. Perhaps Aussie whites are more distrustful of other races than their UK counterparts, due to various factors that will never be explained by a simple hit piece on IRV.
If you want to get conspiratorial about Maine, I would start here [ballotpedia.org].
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]