Question for debate: should the Constitution be amended so that elections use Instant Runoff Voting?

The way I see it, so that one candidate doesn't spoil another's chances of winning, I think elections should use IRV. Already the Constitution Party is attracting new members, mainly those who're conservative Christians and they're coming from the Republican Party. Link If there wasn't IRV, then the Reform and Constitution Party candidates could in effect take enough votes away from the Republican Party candidates and thus Republican candidates could not be able to win as effectively. And the Democrats if there was no IRV would not be able to win as effectively because Green Party candidates would take votes from them. For those of you who are interested in just how close the elections were last time in '00, here's a link:2000 Elections

Can you explain exactly how "instant runoff voting" works? I can't quite figure it out.

In general, I have to say that any system that would give more power to the two major parties is not a good thing.

If you go to this link, it explains how IRV works. Muppets use IRV

Thanks very much for the link.

Although I can appreciate the theory behind this system, I don't think it would make much difference in a nation where the two party system is so strongly in place. If there were a strong third party, this might work out well. It would really work very well in a nation where there were many parties, and which had a parliamentary system, I think.

I also see a problem with getting such a system to be accepted by the American public. If you think the Florida debacle in 2000 was fun, just wait until all the fussing over a system like this gets started. Since it requires some basic knowledge of mathematics to understand, I think many people would be confused and cry foul at the results of such a system.

Vic is right. You would take ALOT of power from the 3rd parties if you did this. Basically you would treat the election like a primary and strip the 3rd party candidate out of getting his/her message out.

cusbilla

I know that the greens are very pro-IRV. I would like to see us use some kind of proportional representation, much as they use in Europe. I've heard from some source, some where, that if we were to have proportional representation, there would be two to three Libertarians in the house. The "winner takes all" philosophy is one that needs to be a thing of the past, much as the choosing of congressmen by the state legislatures has been thrown into the dustbin of history.

This may be true, but one of the main reasons we have such a strong two party system in the first place is because of our current election scheme. Because you only have one vote and the candidate with the majority of the votes wins, voting for any third-party candidate is seen as "throwing away your vote." Since nobody wants to vote for them, minor parties can't establish any kind of support. "Why should I vote for this party if they only got 3% last year and has no chance of winning?"

That being said, I think IRV would work better than our current system. It would allow people to vote for minor parties without fear of wasting their votes since, if their favorite candidate lost, they would still be giving their vote to the next best candidate. This would allow third parties to gain support quickly and it's unlikely that the political field would continue to be dominated by only two parties. Optimistically, this would encourage all parties to be more responsive since they would have actual competition breathing down their necks.

However, if we're going to change our election procedures, I don't think IRV is the best choice. Under certain conditions, it's possible to make a candidate lose by voting him higher (see below link for grueling details). I believe Condorcet's Method (aka Method of Pairwise Comparisons) is better since it doesn't allow this to happen. The method is a tad too complicated for me to describe here, but you can check out this site if you'd like to know how it works. According to the mathematicians, it does a very good job of encouraging people to vote for who they actually like.

http://electionmethods.org/evaluation.html



This is a really good point. I'm not sure how valid the concern is, but considering the current debate over electronic voting as well as the last presidential election, it's definitely worth considering. If Condorcet's Method and Instant Runoff are too complicated, I would go for the Approval Method, which allows voters to vote for as many candidates as they wish. Whoever gets the most votes wins. It's simple. It doesn't lead to throwing away votes. It allows people to support third parties while weeding out the candidates that very few people like.

In reading the threads of others on this issue, I can't help but notice that one of the democratic candidates has been a big proponent of election reform. I have to admit the guy has to be given some credit for wanting to expand the democratic workings of our country. Not only is he for the IRV, but he would want a more inclusive debate system. I think his position really takes some guts, since not a lot of other candidates have stated that cheating other candidates isn't right. I applaud him for his integrity and honesty. Unfortunately, both members of the democratic and republican parties could take a refresher course from Kucinich on expanding choice for the American voter.