iTunes in my Nintendo and Nintendo in my iPod. That would be a killer combo.

But all consoles aren't for 'hardcore' gamers. Consoles defy logic in this sense. Yet, despite the naysayers, they persist, because they do have their benefits. Pick up a Wii U. Play ZombiU, COD, Mario and NintendoLand and tell me these aren't fun games that the respective audience wouldn't enjoy.

No one knows what it is. Everyone I have shown, likes it. Good graphics. Online play (really this time). The game pad is a welcomed addition to every game I have played on it. Mario. COD. Nintendoland. ZombiU. They are all great games done well on the Wii U.

Everyone I have showed the Wii U too loves it and was unaware of what it was. My 'hardcore' gaming friends love ZombiU. They love the suspense. They love the gamepad as an inventory management - minimap - sniper scope. It is a fun game. My casual friends like being about to play it without a TV. Everyone likes the 5 player - 1 v 4 mini games. It is a good system. Call of duty looks good. Mario is good. Their online play is finally good (although it is inexcusable that you cannot sign in on a friends console).

I think you make the mistake of picking out traits from some and ascribing them to the whole. I am certain this tactic can make any party seem illogical, ignorant and evil.

Except you would have to dedicate as much time to it as it would lock someone out. For instance, 5 bad attempts take you 0s + 1s + 2s + 4 + 8s = 15s and locks them out for the next 16s. So, if you wanted to lock someone out for a day, you have to spend a day (less one second) locking them out. Even if you automated this attack, surely IT could handle that.

Here is open letter to IRV supporters.

What points do you disagree with in this open letter to IRV and why?

http://rangevoting.org/TarrIrvSumm.html. Also, check the "more detailed look" link at the bottom. This lays out the case that IRV leads to a two party system.

Certainly, first past the post is objectively worse than many systems. I would also like to see any of the better systems in place. It seems like IRV has made the most progress in being implemented. I am still persuaded by the range voting people that their system is better. But I am open to re-evaluate my position.

Thank you for the links. I am eager to read up on how your system works.

I have been reading on various voting systems and also on things like PR. I would be very curious to hear what you think about http://rangevoting.org/AustralianPol.html which purports that IRV yields the same duopoly we have in the US. I would also like your take on this http://rangevoting.org/AusIRV.html which talks about it in a different context. And this http://rangevoting.org/WhyThirdRange.html which uses the 2007 election to say IRV doesn't help third parties as much as it should.

Is there a reason you prefer it over Range Voting? What I have read leads me to conlude Range Voting is better. See http://rangevoting.org/rangeVirv.html. But, I am definitely interested in opposing views.

The trade off with PR, as I understand it, is that since you vote for a party instead of a candidate there is less accountability for the individual politician. So we either choose more accountability (better individual candidates) or better overall representation (more proportional). Is there a PR system where people still vote for candidates instead of parties? I don't want a party choosing my representative (that is what we have now anyways with two party....) Also, since the party chooses the candidate list there is even more incentive for party loyalty (which is bad for voters but good for the party).

Read the Wikipedia article on voting systems. It is very fascinating. There are a variety of better systems out there than what we have. My personal favorite is Range Voting. Range Voting allows you to score each candidate (e.g. from 0 to 10). The candidate with the highest average wins. There is a caveat to keep someone with one vote of a perfect score from winning (or similar). It is a great system. It allows you to vote your conscience without giving the advantage to the "other team" by "throwing away" your vote. I believe this system would incubate viable "third" parties and shift our political discourse away from the "them vs us" nonsense we have now (e.g. voting against a candidate).

IRV is a step in the right direction, but there is math which shows that it tends towards the same two party system we have now. There is also empirical evidence to back this up. I am for voting reform, but I think IRV would essentially be shooting ourselves in the foot. If it were successful, we wouldn't see the kind of change we want (i.e. better representation) and the two party system would be strengthened. After all, we would have IRV and they would still be winning (to the chagrin of many of their "constituients"...)