I've heard of several alternative voting systems like this, usually designed for situations where you have large slates of candidates for various offices, and the winner-take-all system is cumbersome or open to abuse, or otherwise impractical. Some of them are being proposed now because modern computerized techniques make it easier to tabulate the votes than it would have been even a half-century ago.

They are not necessarily used to give majorities power, or to allow minorities to achieve power, or any other such nefarious purposes, although I suppose any system is open to abuse under certain circumstances. As in cases of dismantling gerrymandered reapportionment schemes, where one side is bound to be inconvenienced by any reform, there is always someone ready to scream bloody murder when the "rules are changed".

I figured something like this was what TB was trying to sneak in the back door with this post, and his response to your post with his usual liberal-bashing and dripping vitriol only confirms it. But even knowing he was initiating this particular gambit, and smelling one of his little indirectas on the way, I still couldn't get it up for tracking this one down and getting into yet another tedious dust-up with the Tbnator. I guess I have better things to do with my time than continuously defusing TB's little ideological IEDs. I know he exploits our fatigue and counts on us not following up. Every time I actually do, I usually find no "Ahas!" and the world is not coming to an end. After a while, just noting the origin of the post is enough to justify its dismissal on the spot. The "boy who cried wolf" effect.

Needless to say, your post once again demonstrates that, if you take the time to take one of TB's little snowballs apart, you'll usually find a rock, if not a piece of glass, hidden deep inside it. Thanks for finding that quote and the related background material. What was oh so conveniently left out of the post is a lot more interesting than what was in it. As usual, there is no "there" there.